The replaceable parts definitely add value as someone who's had one for 4 years now or something like that. It's probably got more new parts than old, some for performance improvements, others for damage because I'm not especially gentle.
I don't really think it's tremendous value if you're purely talking about laptop per dollar. I probably could've bought two similarly performant laptops for the amount I've spent on the Framework over the years, maybe two and a half. But it is incredible peace of mind to know that the same machine I already have will keep working even if some part of it breaks, I don't have to worry about reinstalling or losing anything or losing the stickers I have on the thing or whatever else. The old mainboard I upgraded from is now a home server with a nice 3D printed case. There's way less e-waste, one thing going wrong doesn't make the whole device a brick. And there is just a genuinely enjoyable novelty to how easy it is to take apart.
It's a hobbyist device through and through. It's for people who like using desktop Linux, because they feel empowered by being able to fix their problems, with the occasional side effect that sometimes they'll have to.
There's simply more people with the opposite problem, especially in markets where Apple is less prevalent, which is most of them around the world. When there's more than one type of cable, plenty of people are going to be inconvenienced when one is chosen as the cable to rule them all, but in the end everyone wins, it's just annoying to get there.
> plenty of people are going to be inconvenienced when one is chosen as the cable to rule them all, but in the end everyone wins
That's not everyone wins. The people that actually bought these devices now have cables that don't work and need to replace with a lower quality product, and the people who were already using something else are continuing to not need cables for these devices. The majority breaks even, a significant minority loses.
Simply not choosing one cable to rule them all lets everyone win. There is no compelling reason for one size to fit all.
Again, that's not a win for anybody. No one winds up in a better position than where they started, there is no payback in exchange for the temporary drawback, which also isn't temporary if the final standard is inferior.
If some people like hip hop but more people like country, it's not a win for everybody to eliminate the hip hop radio stations so we can all listen to a single country station.
Not at all. A common railway gauge is necessary for different parts of the rail network to be joined together. If one section of the network has a different gauge, it is cut off and can not be joined without being completely replaced, leaving you with two less capable rail networks. Everyone does benefit from a more capable rail network.
Further, rail gauge is not a consumer choice. If there were two rail gauges and your local rail station happened to have a different gauge than your destination, you'd be SOL. A different rail gauge may provide benefits for people with specific needs, but you don't get to take advantage of those benefits except by blind luck.
There is no such benefit from standardizing cable connectors. If someone charges their phone with the same style cable as you, you gain nothing. If someone uses a different cable, you lose nothing. There is no reason for anyone not to use their preferred cable which is optimal for their use case.
Everyone, but the environment wins. Once I upgrade my phone and Airpods, I will have to throw out my pack of perfectly working lightning cables.
I'm sure there are more than a few people that would end up throwing out their perfectly functional accessories, only for the convenience of carrying less cables.
There's AI slop (or hastily human generated slop, hard to tell) in Duolingo so I won't advocate for its quality, but I've been trying to use several different flagship models for language learning (with a native speaker on speeddial to fact check things) and they get stuff wrong a lot. LLMs are absolutely not ready to be your sole source for language learning. They seem perfectly competent at communicating in whatever language you want, and are fine at translation, but for example, explaining grammatical concepts of one language in another language they have been surprisingly incompetent at in my experience.
I and my wife used an LLM to translate something she had written, she could have done that herself but she doesn't feel up to a task like that yet (due to the target audience). And I myself am far away from being able to translate that kind of text to my native language.
In general the translation was good, but the wording felt a bit unnatural, and to my surprise it got some basic grammar wrong - specifically, using the wrong grammatical gender for some nouns (sometimes there are valid variants, but not in the cases I'm referring to), and also using pronouns where a native never would - where it's too hard to immediately see what the pronoun refers to. In the end I had to massage the output a lot before it was acceptable, and we spent hours before the output was acceptable (changing the input to try to coerce a better translation, and after that refreshing the translation manually to fix grammar errors, wording, and as mentioned, overuse of pronouns).
The two sentences do not contradict. Using LLMs alone would be bad. However they can be used with other things. Most people are get fluent in a language use several different methods to learn.
It isn't clear if LLMs are good. The formal studies cannot possibly be done so don't bother looking. (a few early studies might be done, but not enough to draw conclusions). And of course LLMs may well change in the future so even if you have a conclusion it may not apply to what we see next year.
I'm learning an admittedly fairly obscure african language, but one with tens of millions of speakers worldwide. LLM can produce intelligible but grammatically-incorrect and unidiomatic output. Is this better or worse than not helping at all? I'd argue worse.
> I'm learning an admittedly fairly obscure african language, but one with tens of millions of speakers worldwide. LLM can produce intelligible but grammatically-incorrect and unidiomatic output.
This isn't a problem with the technology; it's easy to observe that it doesn't happen with better-known languages. Your problem is that you don't have a model for your target language.
> Is this better or worse than not helping at all? I'd argue worse.
My first instincts go that way too. But note that language classes consider it desirable for the students to try to speak with each other in the target language. (And not just where they can be supervised - the more they do it, in any context, the better.)
If the only input you ever get has the grammar incorrect, your grammar will also be incorrect. But you can handle a lot of your input being incorrect without major problems.
> This isn't a problem with the technology; it's easy to observe that it doesn't happen with better-known languages. Your problem is that you don't have a model for your target language.
technically, you're correct. But I don't expect to see much given how resources for ai licenses are calculated.
The issue is that understanding what is actually exploitable and what is actually a part of your threat model is difficult, it's a pretty high bar, a bar not met by most people that typically have decision making power around a product or service. It's a huge problem but it's not particularly easy to fix so it's pretty obvious why the industry has taken the route of deciding certifications and scans = security and that vulnerabilities only exist if they have a CVE assigned, and anything with a CVE assigned must be an actual problem.
I don't have any idea what the situation is here and whether it's as black and white as you paint it, but regardless, surely something as significant as this should be presented to the user as an option rather than the manufacturer deciding for you that your phone that you own and paid for should now be unusable?
