I think they mean if they already have her fingerprint from somewhere else, and a secret backdoor into the laptop. Then they could login, setup biometrics and pretend they had first access when she unlocked it. All without revealing their backdoor.
I'm not sold at the idea - for most projects it makes sense that the author of the PR should ultimately have ownership in the code that they're submitting. It doesn't matter if that's AI generated, generated with the help of other humans or typed up by a monkey.
> A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision. - IBM Training Manual, 1979
Splitting out AI into it's own entity invites a word of issues, AI cannot take ownership of the bugs it writes or the responsibility for the code to be good. That lies up to the human "co-author", if you want to use that phrase.
> It doesn't matter if that's AI generated, generated with the help of other humans or typed up by a monkey.
It doesn't matter how true this should be in principle, in practice there are significant slop issues on the ground that we can't ignore and have to deal with. Context and subtext matter. It's already reasonable in some cases to trust contributions from different people differently based on who they are.
> Splitting out AI into it's own entity invites a word of issues, AI cannot take ownership of the bugs it writes
The old rules of reputation and shame are gone. The door is open to people who will generate and spam bad PRs and have nothing to lose from it.
Isolating the AI is the next best thing. It's still an account that's facing consequences, even if it's anonymous. Yes there are issues but there's no perfect solution in a world where we can't have good things anymore.
Most code was garbage before AI, and most engineers made significant mistakes. Very little code is not future tech debt. Review and testing has always been the only defense, reputation or skill of the committer is not.
> The old rules of reputation and shame are gone. The door is open to people who will generate and spam bad PRs and have nothing to lose from it.
The important part here is that reputation creates an incentive to be conscious of what you're submitting in the first place, not that it grants you some free pass from review.
There's been an unfortunate uptick in people submitting garbage they spent no time on and then whining about feedback because they trust what the AI put together more than their own skills and don't think it could be wrong.
The issue is the asymmetry between the time it takes to generate convincing AI slop and the time it takes to review it. The convincing part was still somewhat difficult when slop had to be written by hand.
I agree that accountability should always rest with the human submitting the PR. This isn't for deflecting ownership to AI. The goal is transparency, making it visible how code was produced, not who is accountable for it. These signals can help teams align on expectations, review depth, and risk tolerance, especially for beta or proof‑of‑concept code that may be rewritten later. It can also serve as a reminder to the author about which parts of the code were added with less scrutiny, without changing who ultimately owns the outcome.
As far as I'm aware, all of the Snapdragon ARM laptops are existing chassis designs with different motherboards. I'm not sure how ARM affects build quality. Moreover, Snapdragon X support on Linux is still heavily a work in progress with issues with sound, power management, webcam support, and video acceleration. I don't know why anyone would go with a Snapdragon laptop today when Intel Lunar Lake excels at the exact same workloads Snapdragon X does, has similar battery life, and Intel actually works on getting device support upstreamed in a timely manner.
The article makes an interesting point about the search focus. I wonder if there were plans for AI assisted search? That is a direction that could explain why search became so prominent.
From reading this thread I’m glad I’m not alone. It seems their “compact” mode has a bunch of invisible gestures that you’re just supposed to know about.
Luckily I’ve also discovered that you can revert back to “bottom” tab mode in the settings, which brings back something similar to the old UI.
As a long time Android user, I find these magical gestures frustrating difficult to discover. How on earth is someone supposed to guess such a gesture exists, and how am I supposed to guess the rules for when certain gestures work and certain gestures don’t?
Even long time friends who are iOS fanatics, and who have used iOS since the beginning are often surprised when I show them a new gesture I’ve learnt. Am I missing something? I’m really grateful to learn this now but I can’t imagine the “Apple way” is to stumble upon these by forum comments?
reply