maximusdrex

5 ms·

1.
by maximusdrex 6mo ago
Yeah, I read that note and stopped looking further. I was hoping that maybe the hardware-specific code was in a different project and just wanted to be nice in case. I just don’t get the point of making AI slop out of something like a toy R
2.
by maximusdrex 6mo ago
Looks like a fun project, but I’m curious what you actually tested on. There’s real numbers for estimated context switch timing, and you mentioned implementing context switching, but I can’t find any actual implementations of the context sw
3.
by maximusdrex 6mo ago
> It is precisely to avoid running Linux and the "wealth of drivers". Why not? I understand not wanting to deal with unnecessary complexity as a hobbyist, but you'll find yourself creating far more complexity trying to imp
4.
by maximusdrex 6mo ago
ST seems to consistently put out faster chips [1]. I think the better question is why bother though? The real reason to use a Cortex-M is determinism in hard real-time systems. I'm sure DDR3 and PCIe would be cool in an MCU and people
5.
by maximusdrex 6mo ago
Calling this "hardware-based security" is somewhere between disingenuous and dangerously naive. Hardware-based security normally implies hardware with a dedicated secure element with cryptographic identities which are impossible t
6.
by maximusdrex 1y ago
I actually agree with that completely. I just want it to be clear that this is a conscious business decision that apple is making and not the result of technical challenges. I think the distinction is important because I don’t love the trad
7.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
Again there is no technical rigor behind these notions. Video providers didn’t like the idea of untrusted HDMI devices scraping video from DRM protected content so they came up with HDCP, which allows anyone to develop and certify solutions
8.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
I truly don’t understand how these types of comments keep appearing under any discussion of apple’s blatantly anti-competitive behavior with messages. This doesn’t even make sense on technical grounds; it would be trivial to require such me
9.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
While I agree with the ultimate conclusion of the article, that FAA regulations need to be modernized for commercial use of sUAS systems, it completely fails to analyze any of the other relevant dynamics facing the American drone industry.
10.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
I’d love to see some data supporting this argument because I’ve heard it over and over from people all over the political spectrum the past few years but it just doesn’t line up with any data. You act like they’re quoting abstract numbers w
11.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
What a disaster for ARM. Qualcomm building out new chips targeting the pc market should have been a victory lap for ARM, not the source of a legal battle with their largest customer. Now potential customers might be a little more wary of AR
12.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
Your understanding is not correct. Chevron deference never meant agencies can just make up and pass law; it was a legal doctrine which merely stated that in places where the law is ambiguous (say a law declares water must be clean of pollut
13.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
Everyone else is missing the point here. SMIC (China’s main semi fab) isn’t the company manufacturing these chips. They haven’t broken into anything close to 3nm-class chips yet. This just means that TSMC is going to manufacture a 3nm chip
14.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
Clearly, I'm surprised there isn't a spam filter that detects this obvious attack.
15.
by maximusdrex 2y ago
I bought one of the M5Stack's devices expecting it would work out of the box with my ESP-IDF code, I was quite disappointed to realize that I had to adapt their code myself. I'm hopeful that this merger encourages M5Stack to build
16.
by maximusdrex 3y ago
For what it's worth I'm not either and absolutely agree with your point, it just felt like that was the more important argument but not the one people were engaging with.
17.
by maximusdrex 3y ago
It feels like every comment on this article didn’t read past the first paragraph. Every comment I see is talking about how they likely barely made any money on the transition once all costs are factored in, but they explicitly stated a crit
18.
by maximusdrex 3y ago
I find your reaction intriguing since I had nearly the opposite reaction. Especially when it comes to the second piece I had little to critique about it technically (maybe a little from a structural standpoint but not as much grammatically)
19.
by maximusdrex 3y ago
Oh absolutely, I agree. I just wanted to make certain it was clear that it isn’t as simple as classifying images as words.
20.
by maximusdrex 3y ago
It’s not really, ASL is it’s own distinct language from English, like most sign languages. ASL is most closely related to French Sign Language, which still isn’t anything related to French and has its own linguistic features and independent
21.
by maximusdrex 3y ago
> I just can't express my architecture in such an abstract form whose logic-level simulations (without considering delays, area, routing, power and clock rate) will give a clear indication of win. Why not? There are plenty of open s
22.
by maximusdrex 3y ago
General purpose processors and FPGAs are entirely different and share very few components or architectural characteristics. Setting that aside, if you have some revolutionary design for an architecture, that should already be abundantly cle
23.
by maximusdrex 4y ago
Yea that's my mistake, but not really the point I was trying to make.
24.
by maximusdrex 4y ago
Not necessarily, the issue here isn't that training on public code should be illegal, it's merely that the models trained on such data should be considered derivative works under the licenses which the code is released under. GPL