It's not always obvious but the bit that is clear is it's hard to delineate "dad is working so don't interrupt him" for on-call incidents etc vs "dad is looking at cat videos". They look the same and it's pretty clearly confusing because it's a malleable boundary.
In terms of attention I actually find it pretty easy to identify their cues even when on my phone. It's more of a general feel of how much I've played with them vs solo play and when they want to hang out they will walk over and make it clear. Plus you are always watching them.
I find these studies specifically frustrating because they don't answer the most interesting question - is it damaging if your caregiver uses phone a lot but remains responsive.
This study specifically excludes it, and fair enough when being honest about the statistical inference and not overreaching, but that is the question I find most interesting as someone who uses my phone to get away from my desk but keep work going so I can spend time with my kids while doing my job.
One outcome would be this is damaging and worse than just not spending time until after work, the other result would say this is a beneficial arrangement.
That doesn't really work for electronic music though.
Electronic or not, whether messing with a buchla or producing via vsts and changing knobs around still ends up with a human feel and human choices in a way AI music doesn't.
And what about the line between triggers or samples? I can play some impossible AI music if I sample the impossible parts and just say it's a sample played on a synth or whatever.
One thing to consider is non-office whether remote or personal projects.
A lot of devs like gaming. Gaming is more simple on windows. Gaming PCs are usually high spec. High spec is good for most coding.
That's why I use windows quite often. My laptop is Linux, but when I'm running heavy models I'll still remote into my main Windows PC, which I also use for gaming.
Though in terms of workplaces - sure, I reckon you're on the money. Big corps often still force windows onto their Devs.
Isn't this where the research plan implement loop comes in though? Assuming comprehension used effectively?
You should be learning alongside the llm through the research phase of anything. Updating your understanding of what is possible and best practices with rigorous checks and limiting scope to a high fidelity to leave little room for doubt. In-line commenting and questioning and asking for more passes on the living document of the area you are working on and then judiciously breaking it down further when you think there is too broad a scope for an llm to understand and synthesise properly.
If you do end up with too much vagueness, you need to limit scope more or break up the feature, implementation etc to be specific and applies enough to again, properly research and decide the plan.
I guess this is not so easy because lot of it depends on your own ability of reading comprehension, but I've had great success learning niche topics because I research (as a sub agent usually) essentially any topic that is mysterious until every level of the puzzle is properly mapped out to the specificity required.
Do I think most people are doing this? No. So I guess the statistics make sense. It's not intuitive to many people I think - because as you said, it's an embodiment of literature that is a tangled web of thought patterns and perspectives, so you need to pare it's answers down to the specific level, direction and area of ideas you want to get out of it. Way easier to do than it sounds, but it requires finesse in comprehension rather than getting lazy with it - normalcy of deviance comes to mind.
Lets generalise a bit more here - every company at any time could completely heel-turn and do awful things. Even my favourite private companies (e.g. Valve) have done things that I would consider evil.
However, I would think I'm not alone in that I'm generally wanting to do good while also wanting convenience, I know that really every bit of consumption I do is probably negative in some ways, and there is no real "apolitical" action anyone can take.
But can't I at least get annoyed and take my money somewhere else for the short amount of time another company is doing it better?
Yes, if openAI suddenly leaps forwards with codex and pounds anthropic into the dust, I'll likely switch back despite my moral grievances, but in a situation where I can get mildly motivated to jump over for something that - to me - seems like a better morality without much punishment to me, I'll do it.
I think you can go more detailed on that and say physical controls for common, quick inputs especially ones people use while they are driving and you don't want them to look down for.
Touch screen is fine for setup screens, extra info, fine tuning stuff etc.
Point is when I'm driving down the road I should be able to muscle memory/tactily skip song, change volume, change air-conditioning settings etc...
But Bluetooth settings... changing colour of display, changing voice assistant tone... leave that on the touch screen. Don't need it.
Sure, but you can record face to face conversations too. But to do so requires more effort, and would only be done if you had a particular need for it.
The original intent and design still would apply to the vast majority of interactions on the chat room.
In terms of attention I actually find it pretty easy to identify their cues even when on my phone. It's more of a general feel of how much I've played with them vs solo play and when they want to hang out they will walk over and make it clear. Plus you are always watching them.