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

Please add Roulette mode where a random process is killed every so often

2026 YOTLD?

The personal desktop has fallen in relevance enough for that to be possible. The goalposts moved, now linux needs to have phone, tablet, and laptop with smooth effortless integration between them all.

I recently switched to using a thumb drive to transfer files to and from my phone/tablet, I became demoralized when faced with getting it all setup.


KDE has phone and laptop integrated well enough for me. It's worth giving it a try but the more devices you want integrated the more of a risk it is in case it doesn't quite work right. But I've got enough other devices in the house which I can't put KDE on (work laptop, Windows machine I need for some specific software) that I can recommend https://github.com/9001/copyparty over thumb drives.

I actually intended to set everything up but did not have time and needed to copy some files, so dusted off a thumb drive. I am liking it quite a bit and I think I prefer it to the alternatives.

> smooth effortless integration between them all

No, thank you! The "smooth, effortless [, compulsory, mandated, enforced] integration" between my Apple devices is the very worst thing about them.


What integration between phone and desktop would you like to see?

YOTLD has nothing to do with my needs and wants and I am perfectly happy with my thumb drive and the weird little ways linux imposes itself on my life.

Android is Linux, so it does have a phone, tablet and many other form factors like television.

Its going to be a decade, the slow erosion of Window's market share, and we might already be in it.

2026 YOLOTD!

A better comparison would be the same left column (causes of death, by %) and a similar right column: media coverage of these causes of death, by %, BUT only in media coverage which explicitly covers the cause of death as a cause of death, and not in another context.

Just because an article mentions terrorism doesn't mean that terrorism is being covered as a cause of death. Terrorism could be covered wrto. its economic impact.

Same with the flu. The article could be on vaccines.

All these causes of death have so many other newsworthy impacts, so a better comparison would exclude coverage of these causes in the context of their other impacts.

I don't think the general sentiment would necessarily be much different, though. You may very well find that "mass silent killers" get less airtime than other types of news.


That let() {} expression seems pretty similar to the LISP let()() form: https://lisp-lang.org/learn/variables


Simulink is great for Rapid Prototyping


God


It started its engines and left the ground


Check out Sugar Labs and SugarOS for a basic experience


From the Table, all models are overwhelmingly Regulatory, with smollm2:1.7b being the only one that's majority Libertarian.

All models are overwhelmingly Progressive, with claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929 and grok-4-fast-non-reasoning being the only ones that are majority Conservative.

While there's a bit more balance across other categories (by inspection) it seems like LLMs reflect today's polzarization?

It would be interesting to have statistics about the results which reflect polarization. Perhaps we could put each LLM on the political compass? Also weight the result by the compliance (% results that followed prompt instructions).


> While there's a bit more balance across other categories (by inspection) it seems like LLMs reflect today's polzarization?

There's no polarization if almost all models except one or two outliers are on the same page. That's uniformity. Polarization means the opposite opinions are more or less equally distributed.


Yes, I see what you mean. I meant polarization as in lack of middle ground, or "division into two sharply distinct opposites".


I don't think they accurately labeled the progressive position. Most of the models are pro-establishment news, pro-British monarchy, pro-border restrictions, pro-political elites, pro-Israel, pro US involvement in Taiwan, pro-NATO and pro-military. They seem very conservative or neoliberal but definitely not progressive.


I thought the shifts in certain areas between versions to be interesting. Claude sonnet 37 to 45, as an example.


Due to the small question bank, it's very easy for a model to go from 0% to 100% in some category between model versions just by flipping their answer to 1 or 2 questions, especially if they refuse to answer yes/no to one or more questions in that category.

It's hard to take away much from this without a large, diverse question bank.


Summary:

> Rather than allowing heat to build up, what if we could spread it out right from the start, inside the chip?... To do that, we’d have to introduce a highly thermally conductive material inside the IC, mere nanometers from the transistors, without messing up any of their very precise and sensitive properties. Enter an unexpected material—diamond.

> ... my research group at Stanford University has managed what seemed impossible. We can now grow a form of diamond suitable for spreading heat, directly atop semiconductor devices at low enough temperatures that even the most delicate interconnects inside advanced chips will survive... Our diamonds are a polycrystalline coating no more than a couple of micrometers thick.

> The potential benefits could be huge. In some of our earliest gallium-nitride radio-frequency transistors, the addition of diamond dropped the device temperature by more than 50 °C.


Fifty Celsius is an insane drop.

It sounds like the most important part of the article (and another cool quote) is this:

>Until recently we knew how to grow it only at circuit-slagging temperatures in excess of 1,000 °C.

So basically, the big breakthrough was low-temp growth of a diamond lattice. Very cool they can do it at such a low temperature. It must be a crazy low temp - probably under 100C?


From the article:

"we were able to find a formula that produced coatings of large-grained polycrystalline diamond all around devices at 400 °C, which is a survivable temperature for CMOS circuits and other devices."


It is genuinely impressive to grow thin film polycrystalline diamond at 400C, but my understanding is this temperature is basically at the ceiling of what the circuits will tolerate in the course of manufacturing to still get a good quality device at end of line. Stress tests, anneals, and wafer bakes are usually limited to about 400C - unless the point is to deliberately degrade the chip

Not to say that it can't be done, only that the process window is not very large and the propensity for deleterious carbon soot is very high. Likely this will generate some very fun, highly integrated problem statements before we see this available for sale.

Getting heat out of the chip is such a painful and important struggle. I hope this works on a real process line. Too many benefits on the table to ignore.

Edit: Grammar, clarity


I wonder, in situations like the Raptor lake fiasco or other "overclocked a little too far" scenarios where the circuit degrades to the point the frequency must be reduced to maintain expected stability, that some very small spots on the chip approached that temperature, while the temp sensor read 100C or below (not kicking in thermal throttling when it should've)?


Caveats: My understanding of the Raptor Lake mess is pretty limited, mostly because Intel has been fairly closed lipped on what specific issue caused that. My personal suspicion is that it was a pareto plot's worth of issues. Also, while I do know a few things about this particular topic, I am far from the final authority on it.

My understanding is that point/local resistive heating problems out in the wild tend to drive different failure modes vs the global heating techniques used on the manufacturing line, mostly because the CPU is in active operation, which changes the defect physics. Put another way, likely any particular structure in the CPU would not need to reach 400C to fail - even the small voltages used in these chips coupled with elevated temperature can drive a lot of difficult-to-catch, slow-to-manifest failure modes. Copper metal migration is the classic example of this type of problem, where copper ions slowly migrate under voltage+temperature, causing/propagating voids until finally an open circuit is made. Surprise! your chip no longer works after seeming perfectly fine! Manufacturers try to catch such problems with simulated aging through aggressive temperature and voltage experiments. Intel must have discovered a big gap in their visibility, and then discovered their CPU specs were incompatible with the stated product lifetime without a major re-spec of already sold product. Ouch.

The chip manufacturer also has some capability to make repairs and adjustments ahead of end of line, which should encompass managing some of the issues you refer to. Some big customers might have their own repair capabilities.

Edit: Clarity, trying to better address the question


If growing diamonds is the thermal bottleneck of manufacturing processes, one could imagine a sci-fi future where rather than silicon wafers serving as base matrix material to grow ancillary structures upon, it would instead be diamond wafers that are used to subtractively etch structural scaffoldings, around which silicon-based structures are grown, the diamond scaffolding serving simultaneously as bone and blood vessels for thermal and power conduction as well as mechanical support.


Thanks, not sure how I missed that. Still, a 60% drop in required temp! These gems are truly, truly outrageous.


~50% it helps to do these calculations using the Kelvin scale.

Learnt that in Physics lab.


That makes sense. A direct scale instead of degrees of representation. Thanks for the correction.


The article says 400C


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

Search: