Whatever you choose.

There’s nothing wrong with writing code in a text editor. Plain vim is the best imo

This is literally not a problem with smartphones, the problem is about the software you decide to run on it. A smartphone is simply a very powerful pocket computer.

I agree with you. Regardless of the state of the world, we should stay optimistic and work toward that goal, instead of surrendering to defeatism.

And you are stupid for not acknowledging that people from other countries are not just useless consumers without any agency. Americans and Europeans have industry too, and very productive ones. The narrative that you can trace any product back to China is entirely wrong and reeks of tankie.

Logging into a non-indexible proprietary service just to be able to read the documentation definitely does not contribute to accessibility.

I cannot confirm. The phone I’m writing these very words on is a Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus from 2019 running LineageOS 20, and the AMOLED display is absolutely gorgeous and looks as good as today’s top-tier smartphone screens. But maybe that’s because this is a Samsung flagship, and Samsung is notorious for making kind of the absolute best displays for their flagships.

Actually, 1 gigabyte (10⁹ B) is 1000 megabytes (10⁶ B), while one gibibyte (2³⁰ B) corresponds to 1024 mebibytes (2²⁰ B). I know that in some circles, 1 GB is treated as 1 GiB, so I don’t blame you. This system of quantities is standardised internationally in order to conform with the SI (mega must mean a million times and not 2²⁰ times), but many don’t conform to it, such as Microsoft as far as I know.

You know there’s a third way…

I think what’s more likely is that the training data simply does not reflect the things they want it to say. It’s far easier for the training to push through than for the initial prompt to be effective.

Light mode definitely is not better for the health of your eyes.

Voluntarily preventing the birth of children that would suffer from horrible disorders due to genetic defects is not a “bar” that is “lower now”, it is the most ethical thing to do.

I love to suck nice wordings

Individual cells do not encode any memory. Thinking and memory stem from the great variety and combinational complexity of synaptic interlinks between neurons. Certain “circuit” paths are reinforced over time as they are used. The computation itself (thinking, recalling) then is “just” incredibly complex statistics over millions of synapses. And the most awesome thing is that all this happens through chemical reaction chains catalysed by an enormous variety of enzymes and other proteins, and through electrostatic interactions that primarily involve sodium ions!

The “blame” lies with no one except for the big social media megacorporations that develop and distribute addictive apps. Phone use by teenagers, or anyone else, is not intrinsically connected to any adverse effects. Rather, negative health consequences for children are the result of an unchecked, raging hypercapitalism.

Or maybe you are just using them wrong 🤔

“Search engine” is not equivalent to “Google”.

That’s a blatant lie. LibreOffice Writer works better than M$ Word for every single purpose and application.

You cannot technically prove it, that’s true, but that does not invalidate the interpolated or extrapolated data, because you will be able to have a certain degree of confidence in them, be able to judge their meaningfulness with a specific probability. And that’s enough, because you are never able to 100% prove something in physical sciences. Never. Even our most reliable observations, strongest theories and most accurate measurements all have a degree of uncertainty. Even the information and quantum theories you rest your argument on are unproven and unprovable by your standards, because you cannot get to 100% confidence. So, if you find that there’s enough evidence for the science you base your understanding of reality on, then rationally and by deductive reasoning you will have to accept that the prediction of a machine learning model that extrapolates some data where the probability of validity is just as great as it is for quantum physics must be equally true.

making a blind guess at what could be there, based on an existing data set.

Here’s your error. You yourself are contradicting the first part of your sentence with the last. The guess is not “blind” because the prediction is based on an existing data set . Looking at a half occluded circle with a model then reconstructing the other half is not a “blind” guess, it is a highly probable extrapolation that can be very useful, because in most situations, it will be the second half of the circle. With a certain probability, you have created new valuable data for further analysis.