I could be wrong, however.

From what I've seen (not in software dev anymore, however I've been in it for close to 30 years), AI just tends to pile everything in, and it is very hard to review. No public model performs even average under the rules I've mentioned.

Also, simply breaking up a PR doesn't count if instead you dump all the PRs on maintainers at once. Humans are the bottleneck here, and can only review so much at once. If i were still involved in PR reviews, it doesn't matter if you gave me a single 4,000 line PR or 4 1,000 line PRs, I"d reject them.

What I want to see. Small, easily reviewable features with a build up to the main course, along with a good explanation for each. After that? I'd probably still reject it for a breach of code standards, or documentation, or because I don't like you sending me a PR at 4:59pm on a Friday. ;)

Humans also can't blindly rely on AI for review, so the models (more precisely, the folks building the underlying stuff) must adapt.

1) power

2) performance

3) die area

SOME chip designs also care about a 4th:

4) die area.

NO design has the best of all...it is impossible since you have to trade 1 for another. The reason x86 has been dominate for so long is that is strikes a good balance across all areas, especially #4. A good balance is what you need for a good chip.

EDIT: oh and you can't beat the system I mentioned above. The laws of physics are the reason why.

The reality? The fastest "available" RISC-V CPUs don't match the best chips in terms of speed, power consumption, or die area. "available" obviously means the chips that have been released to the public and can be independently benchmarked.

I do think that is okay, however I also think that those involved with RISC-V aren't helping much, and current attempts at standardizing seem to be just creating a bigger problem.

That being said, RISC-V does seem to perform well in specific niches.

I don't usually rely on AI for much (I'm actually kind of anti-AI, although I follow stuff like this enthusiastically because of the rapid advancements, "average joe" access, and openness), however for what I asked? It was spot on.

The subject was a bit personal, so I won't share. I was just curious what AI would say about the situation and it definitely surprised me, especially since Qwen, while usually great on development/coding stuff, has shown weaknesses in other areas.

Definitely a solid release, and this one runs on my 4090 with minimal loss of quality!

For starters, The slowest sticks of DDR(x) are often slower than DDR(x-1). The issue is never capacity, but rather, performance.

The real nonsense? USB? It's a mess. Pick a USB cable and buy it from ANY retailer, let's make it easier, buy a USB-C cable. What is the data rate (depends on cable quality and length), Does it support power delivery? If so, how many watts? (~5W requires a very different cable from ~230W), how do you know from simply looking at the cable? If you buy a cable, how can you tell what it supports by simply looking at the connector? Imagine having a box full of USB-C cables. Could you tell me how fast each of those cables are? (The cables themselves don't! Many don't have any markngs at all, and if they do, the markings could be fraudulent)

RAM does not have that issue. A stick fits or it doesn't. Sure, there are a huge range of speeds, however, that range has a ballpark (JEDEC defines the ballpark, the "cartels" make the memory and push out some faster stuff).

While there are definite exceptions (I was bitten by one recently), you can generally plug in a DDR5 DIMM and expect it to work in the system.

The same cannot be said for USB. Some USB cables ONLY deliver power. Some only work with certain devices. I've USB-C (!!!) cables that only work with the devices they are shipped with, and even more annoyingly, the both may be true! ASUS (!!!) ships MOTHERBOARDS that can only pair with vital hardware via very specific USB-C cables (Strix Hive) and "GLORIOUS" ain't so glorious. Their mouses warn you not to use other USB-C cables, and they are right, depending on the make/model/generation, you can brick your "glorious" peripheral.

No, USB nonsense needs to stay far away from anything else.

Also, the reason this is a huge issue is because the memory makers are cartels. Only a few of them exist, they gang up and bully EVERYONE and nobody has ever invested money to create a competitor due to this, except China, which of course means that the U.S. and portions of the E.U. are insta-banning/trying to insta-ban, even though it is really freaking hard to install spyware on a memory module.

The only exception I can think of would be for meter reading, which should be a separate, read only device with no ability to do harm altogether.

I'm not defending Apple at all (I'm a developer, I've not specifically worked on apps for iDevices, however I've worked closely with those that take our platforms and tie them into those apps at many companies and startups)

I've also not finished reading the article, however right away, based on what I've read, I see the problem. Apple reviews a thousands upon thousands of apps a day, and the folks reviewing those apps (and now, AI) aren't going to continue to review an app when they see a potential violation. It is up to the app developer to be clear and concise.

Apple is a pain to deal with, I get that. However, I see why it was rejected. Continuing to read the article now.

EDIT: read the rest of it. My take is that they are probably employing AI based upon the odd response (which is dumb, also note, Apple has been using forms of machine learning for years to assist with this stuff. When I say AI, I specifically refer to LLMs).

Something that I think folks really need to pay attention to, however, is the first impression. The app reviewer doesn't just hit a reject button and call it a day. They take notes. Notes that aren't shared with you, just among folks that may review it again in the future. When it is re-reviewed, those notes are taken into consideration and given a ton of weight. That is why it is important to give a perfect presentation the first time around. If you have 30 seconds to re-review an app that was rejected and you have notes (and possibly a screenshot or two? I don't know if Apple does that part) of what was presented during the previous review, you aren't going to do a whole bunch of investigating if it looks like nothing has changed. You have deadlines that impact your performance review, you will move on and rubber stamp the re-review. The next level up will take slightly longer, etc.

(now they’d need to do something crazy like USB-C 40G PD60 as a name in order to fix things, unless the next version of USB is a clean break)

Now they’ve made a mess of things, and cables AND connectors are all over the place.

However, here in the U.S. my iPhone immediately tosses these messages into spam. The same with Google Voice. I've not given out my actual phone number to anyone, and if someone requires it, I give them the GV number. If they don't accept that number they don't get my business (I think that has happened like three times in the past decade).

General rule of thumb: ignore random messages, calls, and emails. If you have doubts/worries, look up the official number for the company/service and call that.

Price/cost is the last thing you compete on unless you have a wholesale advantage, which nobody in this particular industry does (visa/mastercard set core rates)

Source: I’ve worked with higher ups in numerous commerce operations.

Commerce is actually even worse than many realize. Look up pepsi and walmart as a small example.

You can take a flaky NES, cut 1 pin on the security chip, and it will work near perfectly.

I am not saying what you stated isn’t true, however, it wasn’t the reason for the solid pink or flashing screens many of us saw.