It's not whether it "really" looks similar. It's what people think, most of the people, and most of the people are neither known for practising good writing nor consuming good writing.

I use dash a lot while people rather usually use and are used to seeing a hyphen. I was called out on a certain app "wtf dude.. the least u can do is nt use ai". Well, the person was using shorthand and textpeak a lot, so it was already getting nauseating for me, so this outburst helped me eject, but not before I politely asked why they thought so and dash was the trigger along with "all da time crct grmr and spelling". Also "hu da hell writes dis long sentences". Guilty as charged.

Apple's proofread is essentially spell-check and punctuation until it isn't and even in a few-sentence-long para you'd see it has sneakily changed a lot and Apple being Apple you, the customer, obviously has no way to set it to "only fix spelling, punctuations and leave everything else including grammar as it is" and I've a feeling a lot of folks are at least using proofread or something on those lines. But then I really don't think browser's "spell check" ought to be kosher either if the content has to be the human's because those mistakes are also makes such text human and in some way unique. I don't think it's an easy line to draw but weird seeing just comments "targeted" here.

I'd rather ask AI to provide a source and then cite the source. But if the source itself is AI backed, then it's a bit different :)

I explained this in a bit more depth in an adjacent reply (feel free to take a look) but obtaining the source from AI doesn't achieve the same thing. For example, there might be other links that contradict that source, which the AI wouldn't cite. Knowing that AI picked the "best" one vs. a human is incredibly relevant when assigning and weighing credibility.

I wasn't sure whether it was an omission or an unintended gap, as the guideline specifically points to "comments". So it seems AI generated/edited posts are fine. Strange, because both can be flagged/downvoted if it was to be left with that.

I'm not saying they're all fine, I'm saying we don't yet have any idea of where to make a cut.

The comments thing is a lot more intimate in the sense that anyone posting comments is inside the house.

As I understand it, the problem is these apps/agents can do all of these and lot more (if not absolutely everything, while I am sure it can go quite close to doing that).

Solution could be two parts:

OS bringing better and easier to use OS limitations (more granular permissions; install time options and defaults which will be visible to user right there and user can reject that with choices like:

- “ask later”

- “no”

- “fuck no”

with eli5 level GUIs (and well documented). Hell, a lot of these are already solved for mobile OS. While not taking away tools away from hands of the user who wants to go inside and open things up (with clear intention and effort; without having to notarise some shit or pay someone).

2. Then apps[1] having to, forced to, adhere to use those or never getting installed.

[1] So no treating of agents as some “other” kinds of apps. Just limit it for every app (unless user explicitly decides to open things up).

It will also be a great time to nuke the despicable mess like Electron Helpers and shit and app devs considering it completely fine to install a trillion other “things” when user installed just one app without explaining it in the beginning (and hence forced to keep their apps’ tentacles simple and limited)

… and are almost always active so that would add to that spread, wouldn’t it?

Severity: Disrupted

So if data won't be recoverable you all will mark it something like "Status: FUBAR" or some equivalent term?

I wonder if ‘Apocalypse’ or ‘Molten Slag’ would be considered professional enough.

I'd accept "X_X" as status.

Status: Torpedoed

FUBAR, I would vote for that

I learnt it the sad way that no one wants it except very very few people.

I do not think that is really the case. What actually happens is that smaller phones are often worse, i.e less battery life, worse processor, worse camera. Because there is less space in the device (and manufacturers think that people will buy a slightly thicker phone) and the screen doesn't use that much energy, the battery has to be smaller impacting performance. And users do not accept that. So unless someone discovers that you can make a full feature, big battery phone by increasing depth and weight of the small device, it wont happen / be popular. But once one company makes one, other will probably follow. Which again reduces revenue per producer...

If your phone is a problem for you, or is insufficient then any phone in your budget that fixes your problems is a worthy upgrade. Otherwise no phone is.