41–50 of 165 posts
This looks like an advertisement for a new season of Severance or something. The image on this page is wild: https://radiant.computer/principles/ Of course, I am intrigued by open architecture. Will they be able to solve graphic card issues though?
It’s every engineer’s dream - to reinvent the entire stack, and fix society while they’re at it (a world without social media, sign me up!).
Love the retro future vibes, complete with Robert Tinney-like artwork! (He did the famous Byte Magazine covers in the late 70s and early 80s).
https://tinney.net/article-this-1981-computer-magazine-cover...
> RadiantOS treats your computer as an extension of your mind. It’s designed to capture your knowledge, habits, and workflows at the system layer. Data is interlinked like a personal wiki, not scattered across folders. This sounded really interesting... till I read this: > It’s an AI-native operating system. Artificial neural networks are built in and run locally. The OS understands what applications can do, what the…
> RadiantOS treats your computer as an extension of your mind. It’s designed to capture your knowledge, habits, and workflows at the system layer. Data is interlinked like a personal wiki, not scattered across folders. This sounded really interesting... till I read this: > It’s an AI-native operating system. Artificial neural networks are built in and run locally. The OS understands what applications can do, what the…
What clashes for me is that I don't see how that has anything to do with the mission statement about getting away from social media and legacy hardware support. In fact it seems kind of diametrically opposite, suggesting intentionally hand crafted, opinionated architecture and software principles. Nothing about the statement would have lead me to believe that AI is the culmination of the idea.
And again, the statement itself I am fine with! In fact I am against the culture of reflex backlash to vision statements and new ventures. But I did not take the upshot of this particular statement to be that AI was the culmination of the vision.
> RadiantOS treats your computer as an extension of your mind. It’s designed to capture your knowledge, habits, and workflows at the system layer. Data is interlinked like a personal wiki, not scattered across folders. This sounded really interesting... till I read this: > It’s an AI-native operating system. Artificial neural networks are built in and run locally. The OS understands what applications can do, what the…
Most of the text on the site seems LLM written as well. Given that the scope of the project involves making their own programming language, OS, and computing hardware, but they don't seem to have made very much tangible progress towards these goals, I don't understand why they decided to spend time making a fancy project site before they have anything to show. It makes me doubt that this will end up going anywhere.
I was thinking the same thing. Out of curiosity I pasted it at one of those detection sites and it said 0% AI written, but the tone of vague transcendance certainly got my eyebrow raised.
Why does it always need to be so difficult? We already have the tools. Our methods, constantly changing and translblahbicatin' unto the falnords, snk snk... this kind of contrafabulation needs to cease.
Just sayin'.
IPFS+Lua. It's all we really need.
Yes yes, new languages are best languages, no no, we don't need it to be amazing, just great.
It'll be great.
> Hardware and software must be designed as one
In here, they describe an issue with computers is how they use layers of abstraction, and that actually hides complexity. But...
> Computers should feel like magic
I'm not sure how the authors think "magic" happens, but it's not through simplicity. Early computers were quite simple, but I can guarantee most modern users would not think they were magical to use. Of course, this also conflicts with the idea that...
> Systems must be tractable
Why would a user need to know how every aspect of a computer works if they're "magic" and "just work"?
Anyway, I'm really trying not to be cynical here. This just feels like a list written by someone who doesn't really understand how computers or software came to work the way they do.
I wonder why the Unix standard doesn't start dropping old syscalls and standards? Does it have to be strictly backwards compatible?
The thing that always worries me about these clean-slate designs is the fear that they'll ignore accessibility for disabled people, e.g. blind people, and then either the system will remain inaccessible, or accessibility will have to be retrofitted later.
I'm actually ok with that if it truly serving the purpose for what a computer should be. I think those principles would embody the notion that the same thing cannot serve all people equally. Simultaneously, for people to interact, interoperability is required. For example, I don't think everyone should use the same word processor. It is likely that blind people would be served best by a word processor designed by bli…
I'd like to think that prioritizing early phase momentum of computing projects leads to more flowers blooming, and ultimately more accessibility-enabled projects in the long run.