6 ms·

We are still missing "Windows Subsystem for Copilot".

• xattt 7mo ago
  Copilot Subsystem for Copilot
  • netule 7mo ago
    Copilot Copilot for Copilot
    • SXX 7mo ago
      Copilot Copilot Copilot Copilot
      • adharmad 7mo ago
        Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
      • unangst 7mo ago
        Copilot copilots Copilot copilots copilot copilot Copilot copilots
        • simonw 7mo ago
          Woah that actually works... Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots, which other Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots assist, themselves assist Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots.
        • x______________ 7mo ago
          I just woke up, please for the love of ai slop, stop before you break my definition of the word copilot! (Fun fact: If you repeat a word sufficiently, it will lose its meaning..)
          • tkrn 7mo ago
            After reading this thread, my brain is now convinced that copilots are actually some sort of small South American mammals. I think I'll stick to that definition; I don't want to lose my mental image of the daft-looking little copilots roaming around the Inter-Andean valleys that their more menacing-looking ancestors once inhabited. Yeah, cute little things.
          • MarsIronPI 7mo ago
            > (Fun fact: If you repeat a word sufficiently, it will lose its meaning..) Too late. Microsoft already caused that to happen.
      • bryanrasmussen 7mo ago
        I guess it does sort of work as a "grammatical infinity" idea https://medium.com/luminasticity/cardinality-and-growth-rate-of-grammatical-infinities-721a426968f1 https://medium.com/luminasticity/cardinality-and-growth-rate... Like an imperative, because copilot can exist as a verb, I copilot a plane, and Copilot can exist as a software product, and as a helper in a software product that is itself a software product that helps you use the software product it is a helper to So Copilot copilot! could be an imperative for Copilot to Copilot, and Copilot Copilot could be a description of a software product that helps people use a software product named Copilot, but the second is not really grammatically correct as a sentence, whereas the imperative is. So in the end I guess you could have a Copilot Copilot..[infinite Copilots]..copilot!
    • GolfPopper 7mo ago
      You could try Copilot Copilot for Windows with Windows Copilot. I know it's still got Copilot in it, but not as much as Copilot Copilot Copilot Copilot MS Office for Windows Copilot.
      • chuckadams 7mo ago
        But I don't like Copilot!
    • deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    • mrbonner 7mo ago
      You're talking about the aladeen or that aladeen? I don't understand which aladeen you are talking about.
    • deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    • microtonal 7mo ago
      Someone can probably make a valid "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" out of Copilot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
  • port11 7mo ago
    Copilot OS
• rhet0rica 7mo ago
  Never understood this about Windows Subsystem for Linux naming, nor its predecessor Windows Services for Unix. Surely Linux is the subsystem running on Windows? Should we now reinterpret Windows for Workgroups as a means of astrally projecting your organization inside Windows 3.11?! The dative only works ONE way, Microsoft! I guess they really just didn't want a product name to start with the name of a competitor's product. I bet Copilot can fix this...
  • layer8 7mo ago
    A "Windows subsystem" is a specific interface between user-mode applications and the Windows kernel. It's a technical notion that exists in Windows. So there are different Windows subsystems for different types of applications. The naming convention is "Windows subsystem for <application type>". It makes more sense when you read it as "Windows subsystem for [running] Linux [applications]". WSL2 deviates from the native concept of what a Windows subsystem is; it is named that way because it is the successor of the original WSL.
    • zarzavat 7mo ago
      > It makes more sense when you read it as "Windows subsystem for [running] Linux [applications]". You can't have ellipsis when the shortened version already has its own meaning. X for Y when both X and Y are nouns means that X is part of Y, not that Y is part of X. e.g. "I bought new tyres for my car". The tyres are part of my car. You can't flip it and say "I bought new my car for tyres", it's just not how the word "for" works. Grammatically it has to be "Linux for Windows subsystem", or "Windows subsystem for running Linux" as you said. The verb is essential for it to parse correctly.
      • ternaryoperator 7mo ago
        There are many exceptions to what you state as an ironclad rule: i bought a display case for my baseball, i bought an album for my photos, etc. “for” can go in either direction.
    • jasomill 7mo ago
• siva7 7mo ago
  Pssh.. your joke surely won't be a joke inside Microsoft..