SunlitCat

Maybe someone should suggest, sudo needs compression capabilities and suggest a great developer, being helpful with that one? :D

That's something i wonder as well. AI needs data to be usable. But what if all the data it gets is just generated by AI?

The “largest ever investment” remark felt less like confidence and more like a “nothing to see here, move along” PR reflex.

So losing a bunch of them won't impact the technological advancement of your society.

This reminds me of Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide, where a civilization decides that phone sanitizers are useless, until removing them quietly collapses everything else. Declaring work “non-essential to progress” usually just means we don’t understand its role.

Well, with Mega certainly. -> https://mega.io/cmd

How about uploading them on mega, dropbox, mediafire or some quickly done wix page? :D

Well, one company is doing already that. It's Valve and their ongoing work on proton, steam deck (which runs on linux) and much more in that space.

Funny how the title alone evokes the old “real programmers” trope https://xkcd.com/378/

The policy isn’t about whether those tools raise good points. It’s about not letting agents act autonomously in project spaces. Human reviewed, opt in use is explicitly allowed.

Additionally, it comes across as pretty hostile toward new contributors, which isn’t the intent of the article at all.

Maybe not targeted specifically at this project, but… can we please stop turning everything into a business idea?

It’s something I’ve been noticing more and more over the last few years: everything gets turned into some kind of monetization scheme, or at least it feels like nothing has value unless it can be turned into money.

That said, good luck with your endeavor!

P.S.: RAMBnB? Do you eat RAM for breakfast in bed? Bold choice! :D

Oh wow. That something like this is necessary is kind of sad. At first (while reading the title), I thought they just didn’t want AI-generated contributions at all (which would be understandable as well). But all they are actually asking for is that one understands (and label) the contributions they submit, regardless of whether those are AI-generated, their own work, or maybe even written by a cat (okay, that last one was added by me ;).

Reading through the (first few) comments and seeing people defending the use of pure AI tools is really disheartening. I mean, they’re not asking for much just that one reviews and understands what the AI produced for them.

It would be interesting to know whether such warnings also apply when the suspected spyware is attributed to a user’s own government.

The problem with calling it “full stack” (even if it has a widely understood meaning) is that it implicitly puts the people doing the actual lower-level work on a pedestal. It creates the impression that if this is already “full stack,” then things like device drivers, operating systems, or foundational libraries must be some kind of arcane magic reserved only for experts, which they aren’t.

The term “full stack” works fine within its usual context, but when viewed more broadly, it becomes misleading and, in my opinion, problematic.

I really wonder when the point will be reached at which the South Korean government steps in and starts to take a closer look at the growing long-term supply commitments that companies like OpenAI are indirectly driving with major memory manufacturers such as SK hynix and Samsung Electronics.

Allocating a very large share of advanced memory production, especially HBM and high-end DRAM, which are critical for almost all modern technology (and even many non-tech products like household appliances) to a small number of U.S. centric AI players risks distorting the global market and limiting availability for other industries.

Even within Samsung itself, the Mobile eXperience (MX) Business (smartphones) is not guaranteed preferential access to memory from Samsung’s Device Solutions (DS) Division, which includes the Memory Business. If internal customers are forced to source DRAM elsewhere due to pricing or capacity constraints, this could eventually become economically problematic for a country that relies very heavily on semiconductor and technology exports.

To be honest, it starts to look more and more like a single company (we all know which one), is just buying up all DRAM capacities to keep others out of the (AI) game.

Not quite. Making specialized DRAM chips for AI hardware needs, requires high tech components. Making low(er) end DRAM chips for consumer needs might be easier to get started with.

I am pretty sure, in the next year we will see a wave of low end ram components coming out of china.

Hi lewq, commentator of your post here.

Yeah, I used ChatGPT to help me write this answer ;) (Unlike JPEGs, it works at the right abstraction level for text.)

I think the core issue isn’t push vs pull or frame scheduling, but why you’re sending frames at all. Your use case reads much more like replicating textual/stateful UI than streaming video.

The fact that JPEG “works” because the client pulls frames on demand is kind of the tell — you’ve built a demand-driven protocol, then used it to fetch pixels. That avoids queuing, sure, but it’s also sidestepping video semantics you don’t actually need.

Most of what users care about here is text, cursor position, scroll state, and low interaction latency. JPEG succeeds not because it’s old and robust, but because it accidentally approximates an event-driven model.

Totally fair points about UDP + Kubernetes + enterprise ingress. But those same constraints apply just as well to structured state updates or terminal-style protocols over HTTPS — without dragging a framebuffer along.

Pragmatic solution, real struggle — but it feels like a text/state problem being forced through a video abstraction, and JPEG is just the least bad escape hatch.

— a human (mostly)

I’m generally skeptical of Windows optimization tools because they tend to change a lot of low-level settings and make troubleshooting harder later on. When someone already has a broken system, it’s often difficult to figure out what’s wrong once a tool like this has touched everything.

This one looks more like a PowerShell automation and debloating script for power users than a classic one-click optimizer, but it still requires knowing exactly what each tweak does. Used without that understanding, tools like this can easily create confusing problems.

I don’t mean to sound dismissive, your frustration is completely understandable.

That said, this does follow a very old and well-documented pattern: build a consumer image generation tool, and a significant portion of users will try to push it toward sexual or nude imagery, especially involving women.

Even companies with massive resources struggle here. Try generating anything even mildly suggestive involving women with ChatGPT and see how many hoops you have to jump through and that’s after multiple layers of prompt and output filtering.

At that point, content moderation becomes an arms race. Keywords, rate limits, paid tiers, moderation APIs, users will route around all of it. Without huge ongoing investment, it’s a battle that’s very hard to win.

So your conclusion that the problem isn’t the product but the market resonates. A B2B pivot makes a lot of sense, because the incentives and user behavior are fundamentally different.

Edit: Even OpenAI seems to be acknowledging the limits here and has indicated plans for some form of adult mode next year. It will be interesting to see whether that also includes more relaxed image generation policies.

The problem with DX12/Vulkan isn’t just that “low-level control is hard”, it’s that a lot of performance-critical decisions are now exposed at a level where they’re extremely GPU- and generation-specific. The same synchronization strategy, command ordering, or memory usage can work great on one GPU and badly on another.

A GPU ISA wouldn’t fix that, it would push even more of those decisions onto the developer.

An ISA only really helps if the underlying execution and memory model is reasonably stable and uniform. That’s true for CPUs, which is why x86 works. GPUs are the opposite: different wave sizes, scheduling models, cache behavior, tiling, memory hierarchies, and those things change all the time. If a GPU ISA is abstract enough to survive that, it’s no longer a useful performance target. If it’s concrete enough to matter for performance, it becomes brittle and quickly outdated.

DX12 already moved the abstraction line downward. A GPU ISA would move it even further down. The issues being discussed here are largely a consequence of that shift, not something solved by continuing it.

What the blog post is really arguing for is the opposite direction: higher-level, more declarative APIs, where you describe what you want rendered and let the driver/hardware decide how to execute it efficiently on a given GPU. That’s exactly what drivers are good at, and it’s what made older APIs more robust across vendors in the first place.

So while a GPU ISA is an interesting idea in general, it doesn’t really address the problem being discussed here.

When will EU6 release be? :D

This article already feels like it’s on the right track. DirectX 11 was perfectly fine, and DirectX 12 is great if you really want total control over the hardware but I even remember some IHV saying that this level of control isn’t always a good thing.

When you look at the DirectX 12 documentation and best-practice guides, you’re constantly warned that certain techniques may perform well on one GPU but poorly on another, and vice versa. That alone shows how fragile this approach can be.

Which makes sense: GPU hardware keeps evolving and has become incredibly complex. Maybe graphics APIs should actually move further up the abstraction ladder again, to a point where you mainly upload models, textures, and a high-level description of what the scene and objects are supposed to do and how they relate to each other. The hardware (and its driver) could then decide what’s optimal and how to turn that into pixels on the screen.

Yes, game engines and (to some extent) RHIs already do this, but having such an approach as a standardized, optional graphics API would be interesting. It would allow GPU vendors to adapt their drivers closely to their hardware, because they arguably know best what their hardware can do and how to do it efficiently.

Sadly, you get sometimes forced that "smart stuff" if you want it or not.

Had to order large tv sets at work, got LG ones. Working mostly fine as dumb displays (for some connected device, delivering the pictures and using HDMI ARC to switch on both at once) but here and there, users are put to the home menu of the LG TV if something fails and need to click through some icons to get to the HDMI input and if you dare to connect them online you get that "Update" notification, when an update is available (even when you disabled auto update).

It would be fitting for a company, or rather, a former nonprofit organization, that builds on empty promises.

Don’t forget that many of these manufacturers operate with long-term supply contracts for components like RAM, maintain existing inventory, or are selling systems that were produced some time ago. That helps explain why we are still seeing comparatively low prices at the moment.

If the current RAM supply crisis continues, it is very likely that these kinds of offers will disappear and that systems like this will become more expensive as well, not to mention all the other products that rely on DRAM components.

I also don’t believe RAM prices will drop again anytime soon, especially now that manufacturers have seen how high prices can go while demand still holds. Unlike something like graphics cards, RAM is not optional, it is a fundamental requirement for building any computer (or any device that contains one). People don’t buy it because they want to, but because they have to.

In the end, I suspect that some form of market-regulating mechanism may be required, potentially through government intervention. Otherwise, it’s hard for me to see what would bring prices down again, unless Chinese manufacturers manage to produce DRAM at scale, at significantly lower cost, and effectively flood the market.

That's a trend I've noticed as well over the past few years. It somehow feels like it's becoming increasingly “important” to make money from whatever you do on the internet. The idea that you can just create things because you enjoy it, or because you want to share what you've made with others in the hope that they might like it and offer interesting feedback, seems to be fading away.

I mean, I get it: the economic situation is tough for many people, and earning money matters. But the focus on creating something simply for the sake of sharing it seems to be disappearing more and more.

2007 you say and less capable you say?!

Try 90s! We had to fight off ActiveX Plugins left and right in the good olde Internet Explorer! Yarr! ;-)

That’s true, tho!

But I still remember the uproar in various communities about Samsung’s decision not to release what was, at the time, the only premium-tier WMR headset, with higher resolution and refresh rate, a wider FOV, mechanical IPD adjustment, and a few other features.

Only the HP Reverb WMR headset, released about two years later, offered comparable premium features and launched in more regions. But in my opinion, by then it was already too late.

The thing is, even at a slightly higher price point, the Samsung Odyssey would have been a great entry into PC VR for many people, since it was still one of the most affordable headsets compared to its competitors at the time, like the HTC Vive or the Oculus Rift.

That alone could have helped WMR gain more traction. But many reviewers weren’t too impressed by the other WMR headsets from different manufacturers. Some even compared them to the Samsung Odyssey and suggested waiting for Samsung to release theirs worldwide, since it was clearly the better one (at that time, in 2017).

And additionally, Samsung never released their Odyssey VR (or it's successor) worldwide, which in my opinion was the reason WMR failed as it was the best of the WMR headsets at the time of their release (of course the HP Reverb was better, but it came out much later).