Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | MobiusHorizons's commentslogin

Those boards have a lot more on the board than just the cpu. At a minimum they have power conditioning and ram, usually also storage. A lot of what you pay for with an sbc is that routing and layout. If it’s got WiFi as well, you could be paying for the testing that goes into rf micro strips and potentially certifications on em emissions.

It is, of course possible to do all that yourself, but the system on module exists, because this integration has value that people are willing to pay for.


Got it. I was more responding to the idea that you can’t get the modules outside of China when you can simply have them made via JLCPCB.

Ah I see. I guess if the design files are available that might be possible. Not sure about component availability though. I don’t remember for sure, but I thought there was something custom about the Broadcom Soc they were using, although that might have been for a different model.

I think the question is “how are the behavior of random spammers on your search page getting picked up by the crawler”? The assumption with cache is that searches of one user were being cached so that the crawler saw them. Other alternatives I can imagine are that your search page is powered by google, so it gets the search terms and indexes the results, or that you show popular queries somewhere. But you have to admit that the crawler seeing user generated search terms points to some deeper issue.

You just link to that page from a page that Google crawls. Cache isn't involved unless you call links caching

Ah that makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

Interesting, I thought Apple Silicon was still ahead on raw numbers, would you mind pointing me at any resources to learn more?

Is that still true when you consider the whole system power consumption vs performance? I was under the impression that Apple's ram and storage solutions give them a small edge here (at the cost of upgradability / repairability)


Apple Silicon has a lead in performance per watt over the competition (not a gigantic one, but a real one nontheless), but we were talking about M1, which is 5 years old now and has no appreciable hardware advantages compared to an AMD or Intel laptop made in the last few years.

The reason an old M1 laptop gets better battery life is almost entirely a software difference.


Thanks for the explanation. I see where I got confused now

"raw numbers" always means a lot of things. Apple's CPU benchmarks are neck-and-neck in multicore and usually top-of-class in single-core performance compared to other desktop chips. x86 will draw more power when idling and during bursty workloads, but is typically more efficient during sustained SIMD-style workloads.

If you want an example of where Apple's design chops are pretty weak, look at their GPUs: https://browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks

The M3 Ultra is putting up some of the saddest OpenCL benches I've ever seen from a 200-300w GPU. The entry-level RTX 5060 Ti runs circles around it with a $400 MSRP and 180w TDP. I truly feel bad for anyone that bought a Mac Studio for AI inference.


It's mostly embedded / microcontroller stuff. Things that you would use something like SDCC or a vendor toolchain for. Things like the 8051, stm8, PIC or oddball things like the 4 cent Padauk micros everyone was raving about a few years ago. 8051 especially still seems to come up from time to time in things like the ch554 usb controller, or some NRF 2.4ghz wireless chips.

Those don’t really support C in any real stretch, talking about general experience with microcontrollers and closed vendor toolchains; it’s a frozen dialect of C from decades ago which isn’t what people think of when they say C (usually people mean at least the 26 year old C99 standard but these often at best support C89 or even come with their own limitations)

It’s still C though, and rust is not an option. What else would you call it? Lots of c libraries for embedded target C89 syntax for exactly these reasons. Also for what it’s worth, SDCC seems to support very modern versions of C (up to C23), so I also don’t think that critique is very valid for the 8051 or stm8. I would argue that c was built with targets like this in mind and it is where many of its quirks that seem so anachronistic today come from (for example int being different sizes on different targets)

Please don't get me wrong. I'm glad the world has mostly transitioned over to HTTPS, but what are you actually concerned about with reading a blog post over HTTP? If you had to log in or post form data, or hosted binaries or something I would get it. But what is wrong with reading an article in the clear? And how would SSL prevent that?

You likely pay for YouTube premium if you aren’t noticing adds

I do pay for premium but my impression of the parent was that this was independent of ads. The test I did in the other comment didn't trigger an ad for some reason even though I was logged out, which may be why it loaded so fast.

Ah. The parent mentioned several frustrations that I am not familiar with (presumably since I also pay for premium and don’t block the ads), but my impression was that the delay was caused by the code refusing to play the video until the time slot for the ad had completed even if the ad failed to load (as would happen when blocking the ad http request)

Unless it’s there to conform to an interface

Especially if it's there to conform to an interface. You can comment out the variable name and leave the type.

The point made in the article was about social contract, not about efficacy. Basically if you use an llm in such a way that the reader detects the style, you lose the trust of the reader that you as the author rigorously understand what has been written, and the reader loses the incentive pay attention easily.

I would extend the argument further to say it applies to lots of human generated content as well. Especially sales and marketing information which similarly elicit very low trust.


What do you mean? The document seemed incredibly digestible to me.

Are you speaking about words like “shall”? I didn’t notice them, but In RFCs those are technical terms which carry precise meaning.


This is exactly what the advice is trying to mitigate. At least as I see it, the responsible engineer (meaning author, not some quality of the engineer) needs to understand the intent of the code they will produce. Then if using an llm, they must take full owners of that code by carefully reviewing it or molding it until it reflects their intent. If at the end of this the “responsible” engineer does not understand the code the advice has not been followed.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: