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

What about PlayStation and Xbox? They use AMD graphics and are a substantial user base.

Because AMD has the APU category that mixes x86_64 cores with powerful integrated graphics. Nvidia does not have that.

Nvidia has a sprawling APU family in the Tegra series of ARM APUs, that span machines from the original Jetson boards and the Nintendo Switch all the way to the GB10 that powers the DGX Spark and the robotics-targeted Thor.

The CPUs in their SOCs were not up to snuff for a non-portable game console until very recently. They used (and largely still do I believe) off the shelf ARM Cortex designs. The SOC fabric is their own, but the cores are standard.

In performance even the aging Zen2 would demolish the best Tegra you could get at the time.

You should note that the Switch, the only major handheld console for the last 10 years, is the only one using a Tegra.

And from everything I've heard Nvidia is a garbage hardware partner who you absolutely don't want to base your entire business on because they will screw you. The consoles all use custom AMD SOCs, if you're going to that deep level of partnering you'd want a partner who isn't out to stab you.


There has been a rumor that some OEMs will releasing gaming oriented laptops with Nvidia N1X Arm CPU + some form of 5070-5080 ballpark GPU, obviously not on x86 windows so it would be pushing the latest compatibility layer.

Aren't their APUs sufficient for a gaming laptop?

PlayStation and Xbox are two extremely low-margin, high volume customers. Winning their bid means shipping the most units of the cheapest hardware, which AMD is very good at.

I hope he's wrong with his predictions in this article. Many folks find meaning in work, and drastic cuts in white-collar jobs will rock their identities.

I am debating whether to start cutting back my spending and saving as much as possible in case such a devastating scenario plays out.


I’m starting to get tired of these old hardware or minimally powered hardware hosting website posts. It’s not that novel anymore.

You're welcome to not read, but as someone who grew up in a certain era, it's pretty cool to see the old things. The webpage he's serving reminds me of all sorts of early internet things, where the knowledge was real and we were just pushing it onto this new thing. The actual site: https://sparc.rup12.net/ has a vibe similar to https://johnlind.tripod.com/, which is incredible. The knowledge is timeless.

> Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.0 or higher

I feel young again...


Why would anyone not think a Sparc server could host a web site?

An old IBM PC or even a Commodore 64 can host a web site. I think there’s a few online. I’ve seen them before.

I’ve seen a lot of younger “cloud native” age developers who have these insane distorted ideas about how much power is needed to do simple things. You’d be shocked at how much traffic a modern mid range laptop can handle with efficient software. The Ethernet card you can plug into it would probably be the bottleneck, since I’m not sure if they make USB-C cards faster than 5gbps.

A mid range laptop will also handle hundreds of gigs in a SQL database just fine.


If the mid range laptop happens to have a Thunderbolt/USB4 port there are a number of Thunderbolt adapters built around Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx SFP28 NICs.

It’s more subtle to me: I’ll never say no to retrocomputing (especially what you need to open yourself to the public internet without getting pwned), but “use a low end VPN and save $$$$!” is a bit old now.

I do not mind retro computing stuff. The most interesting part was installing up-to-date OpenBSD. But of course it can serve a static website.

Would have loved to see how it holds up with some load via FastCGI and CGI (via slowcgi(8)), since httpd(8) can be used with both of them.

The question as posed in the title is novel because it violates Betteridge's law of headlines:

> "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

I'd rather see stuff like this than an LLM spicy take on the front page. JMO, YMMV.


At least it's not some, "AI makes me feel like a kid again" jagoff.

I don’t even think it’s optional in software development today. My work has made it abundantly clear that using agentic tooling is essentially for you to be considered performing at an acceptable level.

Depends on who you work for. It's entirely optional at most of the non-SV companies I know of.


Try Claude Code too. It’s surprisingly good at this.

Claude Code is pretty good at making slides already. What’s your differentiator?

* ability to work with your own PowerPoint native templates; none of the AI slide makers I've seen have any competency in doing that.

* ability to integrate your corporate data.

* repeatable workflows for better control over how your decks look like.


I honestly don’t know why anybody would want to use an agentic coding tool from Atlassian, but I thought I’d share this article because it is an interesting development.

It's been turned on in Jira / BBC cloud for me, it's not very good by comparison and IMO too late in the process. You want those same things happening as the code is being written

Hopefully people will start learning that you want to install as few browser extensions as possible.

In principle I agree with you, there is just so much crap online that it's tempting to just add this one more extension to fix something.

Looking at my own installed extensions, I have a password manager, Privacy Badger and Firefox Multi-Account Containers, which I suppose is the three I really need. Then I have one that puts the RSS icon back in the address bar, because Mozilla feels that RSS is less important than having the address bar show me special dates, and two that removes very specific things: One for cookie popups and one for removing sign in with Google.

The only one of these I feel should actually be a plugin is my password manager. Privacy management (including cookies), RSS and containers could just be baked into Firefox. All of those seems more relevant to me than AI.

Maybe adding a GreaseMonkey lite could fix the rest of my problem, using code I write and control.


> one for removing sign in with Google

You could use an adblocker rule instead:

  ||accounts.google.com/gsi/client$script
(I’m not sure if it’s possible to do that with Privacy Badger though)

Moving the toggle for "accounts.google.com" to full blocking in Privacy Badger ought to do it.

Heads up, full blocking of "accounts.google.com" will break some login pages entirely. But it is a good domain to fully block as long as you're comfortable using the "Disable for this site" button when something goes wrong.


Hey, that seems to work, very nice, that's one less extension.

My honest reaction to your comment is "What? No!".

I want to block ads, block trackers, auto-deny tracking, download videos, customize websites, keep videos playing in the background, change all instances of "car" to "cat" [1], and a whole bunch of weird stuff that probably shouldn't be included in the browser by default. Just because the browser extension system is broken it doesn't mean that extensions themselves are a problem - if anything, I wish people would install more extensions, not less.

[1] https://xkcd.com/1288/


And apps, and software dependencies in general.

The scrolling was so bad I had to close the page when I was actually interested.

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

Search: