I call out false dilemma. OP probably defines "code" as one of the languages precise enough to be suited for steering Turing machines. Thus, "code" is not the opposite of "prompt". They are apples and oranges.
Lawyers can code in English, but it is not to layperson's advantage, is it?
And for example, if you prompt for something to frobnicate biweekly, there is no intelligence today, and there will never be, to extract from it whether you want the Turing machine to act twice a week or one per two weeks. It's a deficiency of language, not of intelligence.
writing software for a hobby is different from hundreds of thousand that do it 40+ hours per week, go into planning into retros into milestone review meetings etc.
I am painting in my free time as a hobby. I do not think I am an authority or should be taken seriously when taking about impact of AI on artists.
Consider your biases about the word "hobby". It's easy to average way more than 40 hours per week on a hobby, and to spend those hours with as much deadly seriousness as the hours at work. Especially if you don't work full-time or don't work at all.
Still, isn't the forecast for one hour from now more useful than literally now? You can see that through the window (and feel it on your face by opening the window).
About the only thing about the weather I can tell from my window is whether it is currently raining or not.
The temperature inside is not at all indicative of the temperature outside, the sun being out doesn't mean it is warm, and I don't really have any useful indicators of wind, unless the windows are rattling, but that doesn't let me know if there's a stiff breeze.
I could walk over and open up my balcony door and experience it all personally, but checking my phone or watch is faster and more accurate, and also gives me the forecast at the same time.
Others have mentioned why. But I also want to add that feeling the temperature over the window might not tell an accurate picture of how cold/hot it could feel over time. I've had instances where I dressed for how cold it felt, only to find myself freezing because I didn't feel the breeze during that short moment I sticked my head out.
Raining outside my window and likely rain right now are different, also wind speed. Opening a window isn't very accurate for wind at all, and I feel like you're acknowledging there that knowing that part can be useful, why not just have it written down?
Easy now, I wasn't saying they did make that claim.
I simply provided a comparatively low-cost alternative for the very expensive display for those for those for whom the display would otherwise be cost-prohibitive.
Best Buy sells 24" touchscreen displays for $339 right now. So you can spend $3000 on a display that sips current or spend 10% of that and you get $2700 to pay towards the higher electric costs.
The issue isn't really Android, it's the touchscreen and the way the UX is a regression from many analog single-purpose devices.
If you gonna have a single-purpose device - make it analog (or close to analog)!
Don't give it a perceptible boot-time and all the other flaws that come with general-purpose computing. Don't make the user have to "wake up the device", let alone have to visually confirm that it is woken-up, before they can switch to the next song.
Now that I think about it, going no-buttons might have been a driver towards larger screens. Having at least a few buttons seemed to make it much less necessary.
