"...demonstrates its capabilities through worked examples" - The hell it does, your "examples" are three lines long. If you're going to compare it with LLMs, then have it do something LLM-ish. Or hell, the MNIST number recognition task would be better than the "hey look i modeled a flip-flop in my funny language" example.

Am I being harsh? Yes, I am. The author is claiming that they have a system that can automatically generate code for "quantum" and "spintronic" computers, yet offers zero proof of that.

https://youtu.be/yItm-9xl0as?si=9I4DLA3qETnQ1N2G

"Retro Game Engine owns the full frame lifecycle." - This is completely meaningless. Your engine controls whatever data is in the buffer that's sent to scanout, but the operating system and the GPU drivers and the scanout hardware in the GPU and the input processing and row/column drivers in the display control everything else.

The only actual screenshots this guy has are some "multiply the image with the subpixel mask" demos that.... don't look anything like a real CRT, and certainly nowhere near modern CRT shaders like CRT Royale.

The rest of the posts in the substack page are similarly devoid of actual content, but very heavy on the AI woo-woo this-is-important-and-deep stylings that I've come to find nauseating.

Hey Author, if you can see this - You're clearly a smart guy, but you need a basic grounding in 3D rendering if you're gonna do weird stuff - more than an AI can give you. In particular, the phrase "Light is linear" will be useful to you. Good luck.

Focusing on micro-"optimizations" like this one do absolutely nothing for performance (how many times are you actually calling Instance() per frame?) and skips over the absolutely-mandatory PROFILE BEFORE YOU OPTIMIZE rule.

If a coworker asked me to review this CL, my comment would be "Why are you wasting both my time and yours?"

It's intended to be integrated into a larger SoC and used for things like secure boot, though you could certainly fab it with its own RAM and GPIO and use it standalone.

Worked with the OT team at Google years ago and am glad to see this stuff finally taped out.

My GameBoy emulator generates one "audio sample" per clock tick (which is ~1 mhz, so massive 'oversampling'), decimates that signal down to like 100 ksample/sec, then uses a low-pass biquad filter or two to go down to 16 bit / 48 khz and remove beyond-Nyquist frequencies. Doesn't have any of the "muffling" properties this guy is seeing, aside from those literally caused by the low-pass.

If the way you nurture a talented student is via "intense drilling", I would argue that the student is not a prodigy in the traditional sense, but a talented and determined student who may or may not be dealing with parental pressure.

The actual prodigies I've known absorb information and gain skills without significant effort - I knew someone who enrolled in a calculus class, skimmed through the book in a week or so, and then would only show up to class for tests (which they would ace).

So the article conclusion doesn't surprise me - inflict relentless training on a young talented person and yeah maybe they won't want to do that as an adult.

But as far as actual "prodigies"? There is no burn-out because there is no (or minimal) effort. The choice of whether to stick with an area of interest through adulthood is more of a personal preference than anything ingrained.

"Do you really want to 'rm -rf /'? Type 'fiberglass' to proceed."