Please, enlighten me - how do you propose we use the term “AI” in a way that’s more useful than a definition that includes machine learning, large language models, and computer vision?

I doubt I’ll agree with your definition, but I’m curious to see how you would exclude machine learning, computer vision, LLMs, etc., from your definition. My assumption is that your definition is going to be either a derivative of “AI is anything computers can’t do yet” or based on pop culture / sci fi, but maybe you’ll surprise me.

To be clear, I’m a software engineer; I’m not speaking in sales speak. I’ve derived my understanding of the term from a combination of its historical context and how it’s used in both professional and academic contexts, not from marketing propaganda or from sci fi and pop culture. I’m certainly aware of the hype machine that’s ongoing, but there are also tons of fascinating advancements happening on a regular basis, and the term “AI” is at minimum a useful term to refer to technologies that leverage similar techniques.

it’s not ‘ai’, it’s just a poorly trained voice recognition system that’s trying to decipher any random person’s voice.

I’m baffled that you can say “It’s not ‘AI,’ it’s a machine learning powered speech to text system” with a straight face.

Even if we were to agree that ML-powered speech to text isn’t AI (and I don’t agree to that premise, for the record), there’s still the matter of processing the transcription to transform it into something that can be understood by the point of sale system - aka natural language processing. And while that NLP could be implemented without use of an LLM, given LLM’s current level of hype and the ease with which they can be shoved into any given product, I wouldn’t bet on Taco Bell execs approving such an approach, much less asking for it.

I hear more complaints about Windows from Windows users than from people who solely or primarily use other OSes. Unless you count “Okay… so why don’t you do something about it?” as a complaint, that is.

I think that makes you “the guy who really likes to talk about Linux.”

From https://wiki.servarr.com/

Welcome to the consolidated wiki for Lidarr, Prowlarr, Radarr, Readarr, Sonarr, and Whisparr. Collectively they are referred to as “*Arr”, “*Arrs”, “Starr”, or “Starrs”. They are designed to automatically grab, sort, organize, and monitor your Music, Movie, E-Book, or TV Show collections for Lidarr, Radarr, Readarr, Sonarr, and Whisparr; and to manage your indexers and keep them in sync with the aforementioned apps for Prowlarr.

See also https://wiki.ravianand.me/home-server/apps/servarr

Servarr is the name for the ecosystem of apps that help you run and automate your own home media server. This includes fetching movie and TV show releases, books and music management, indexer and UseNet/Torrent managers and downloaders.

You can store passkeys in (and use them from) a password manager instead of the OS’s secret vault. I think most major password managers support this now - Bitwarden definitely does.

I genuinely don’t understand why people here are taking it so hard that I wish the Immich devs were using semver.

Because you didn’t say that; you said “Breaking changes in a point release? Not cool” and later “I’m basing this off the guidelines at semver.org.”

I’m paraphrasing your comments from memory, to be clear, so apologies if I misquoted you.

It certainly felt to me like you were assuming that this project was using semver and was not following it well, not that you wouldn’t want to use a project that receives this many breaking changes / that doesn’t follow semver. Those complaints both make a lot more sense to me - and I’ve seen many people say similar things about Immich in the past. In fact, it’s a big part of why I haven’t migrated from Photoprism to Immich myself - in this regard they’re complete opposites.

I don’t think there’s any room to argue that announcing a 1.x with a change the developers say is a breaking change, which is what Immich have done, fits within the semver.org guidelines.

That wasn’t the argument.

Following semver is optional. If a project doesn’t explicitly state it is following semver, it shouldn’t be assumed that it is. With regard to Immich in particular, a cursory review of their documentation makes it clear that they are not following semver. Literally, go to https://immich.app/ and read the text at the very top of the page:

⚠️ The project is under very active development. Expect bugs and changes.

Go to the repo and you’ll see the README, which states at the very top:

• ⚠️ The project is under very activedevelopment.
• ⚠️ Expect bugs and breaking changes.

If you can read that, see that they’re on major version 1 with a minor version over 100, and you still think they’re using semver, then that’s on you.

The devs have stated they won’t be using semver until they consider Immich production ready, and that moving to a 1.x version from 0.x was a mistake made some time ago. If you want to think about it as though it is semver, consider the major version to still be 0. See https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/5086#discussioncomment-7593227 for example.

As this project is clearly not following semver, the semver guidelines aren’t applicable and haven’t been violated.

I don’t think there’s any room to argue

Even if semver were applicable, in this case, I would still disagree. The text from semver.org states:

8. Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backward incompatible changes are introduced to the public API.

It doesn’t state that any backward incompatible changes, period, require a major version increase, only changes to the public API. I would personally argue that the deployment configuration is part of the public API, but not all project owners agree with me. Even if they do agree, they might say that this was not a documented deployment configuration and thus not part of the public API, and that it therefore doesn’t necessitate an increase to the major version, but as they knew that people were using that configuration, anyway, they included a note about a potentially breaking change as a courtesy to those users.

Immich isn’t a library (the main use case for semver is dependencies that will be pulled into other projects) and as far as I know they don’t state that they use semver.