Samsung, Huawei, Microsoft, and LG tried similar ideas and none got much traction.

I’m not sure it’s actually a good idea even now that phones have enough CPU and RAM for an adequate desktop experience. It’s certainly not a good idea running Android as we know it, where apps are data silos and have UIs that don’t cleanly transition from the palmtop experience to the desktop experience.

You can do that today with a Linux tablet and Waydroid. It’s more like running the Android apps in a VM than something really well integrated with the Linux environment, but perfect is the enemy of good.

I got my first tablet this year after a long time as a skeptic. It runs Arch, BTW.

Most of the time it has a keyboard attached and I use it like a laptop, but it’s nice to be able to watch movies on flights during taxi, takeoff, and landing because tablets and phones are allowed, not laptops.

Gnome is really nice on a touchscreen aside from the terrible onscreen keyboard. KDE is a little rougher, but its onscreen keyboard is decent.

I remember making a note to look into it several times, and thinking I should buy one (exactly one) when it was about $600. If I had, I imagine I would have sold at 10x rather than holding until 100x or its peak at 200x.

I actually did think it or a successor would become important as a consumer payment method. I was wrong there.

I remember playing with a Motorola Atrix in a store. It seemed like a really cool idea.

I thought people would learn how to use computers.

It seemed as if most of the millennial generation in wealthy countries did learn to some degree and I expected it to be even more true for younger generations. Those more sophisticated users would enable more sophisticated and flexible applications. Technology would empower individuals while weakening corporations and governments.

Instead, the most reliable recipe for popularizing tech is to dumb it down. Millennials represent a peak of digital literacy (in wealthy countries) and those younger tend to have weaker technical skills.

LLMs don’t understand things. They repeatedly predict the next token given previous tokens.

I don’t think something without predictable patterns is likely to work as a language. A very complex grammar probably means the LLM will make grammatical errors more often, but that’s probably the most that can be done to make a language hard for LLMs. Other comments mention languages without much training data, but I don’t think that’s what you’re asking.

Masks are better than nothing if the wearer is sick, but respirators are far superior. Disposable N95 and FFP2 “masks” are respirators.

Ms Ponting was given… desoxyn, a stimulant

It’s really weird of the BBC to use this little-known brand name when everyone knows what methamphetamine is.