Even for extended workloads, a Pi 5 without a heatsink is still a hell of a lot faster than a Pi 4. And as sibling says, most users appreciate bursty speed while not doing prelonged compute (see also fanless laptops).

(Disclaimer, I work for raspberry pi ltd, not views of employer etc.)

You could say almost the same about Gorillaz except for the AI part.

Gorillaz had real people behind them.

Not unlike Buckethead, they seemed to prefer avoiding the direct spotlight of fame, but they still wanted to create these things and put their thoughts, feeling, and original aesthetic out there in the world.

...all of which is to say "except for the AI part" is a pretty big exception.

I had that style of integrated panels installed on my (Victorian) house in the UK. The slates were old and crumbling so needed replacing and doing integrated panels meant only needing a fraction as much slate which saved a chunk of money. I think the result also looks a lot better than non-integrated panels, at least with slate roofs (which are common in my area)

Apparently integrated panels can be a little less efficient in hot weather as they don't get cooled by airflow under the panels and are less efficient when hotter. But it's a pretty minor effect, maybe a few percent of output. Seems like the best option on a new-build or if you're re-roofing anyway.

To look at it another way, just because some code I work on at my job is derived from open source MIT-licensed code doesn't mean I personally have the right to distribute it if my company doesn't want me to. I'd guess this comes under some generic "confidential information" clause in the employment contract.

Hmm your example is different: if you manually write code, there is a copyright for it whether it is derived from an MIT-licence or not. If you don't own that copyright (because your employer does), then you don't have the right to distribute it because it is not your code.

If you generate the same code with AI, now it does not have a copyright. If it depends on an MIT library, then the MIT library has a copyright and you have to honour the licence. But the code you produced does not have a copyright (because it was generated by an AI). And therefore nobody "owns" it. My question is: can your employer prevent you from distributing something they don't own?

This is a very long-standing and AFAIK never explicitly decided copyright and human rights question: If something is Public Domain, are contracts restricting distribution valid? Is our right to information or knowledge a fundamental human right that is not permissible to take from others, such that restrictions greater than those imposed directly by the State are invalid? In a healthy society, "I have created an extraction machine and your actions are hindering my extraction" is not a valid argument. So at the very least contracts restricting rights to public dmoain works should be allowed only with heavy restrictions as to when, how, and for how long they are binding - much like the legality of non-competes have has steadily reduced in many places in recent years.

CC0 came about in part because of this ambiguity. To deal with it, part of CC0 basically says - even if there would still be restrictions to this if it were only in the public domain, I renounce those theoretical rights.

Outside the underdeveloped legal framework, I believe knowledge and truth is like life, and human society has some continued philosophical growth required here.

It'll be the same as larger inverters for roof-top solar - they are constantly monitoring the mains cycle and will shut off if the voltage (or probably frequency too?) goes out of range, let alone drops out entirely. The relevant standards in the UK are G98/G99.

If you weren't aware, the HN guidelines now include:

> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.

Two advantages for me: It's nice that you don't break the connector if you trip over the cable or put the laptop down on a soft surface, and it's nice being able to charge while still using both USB-C ports (although I guess 3x USB-C would also solve that).

I don't really see any downside to a proprietary connector if you also have the option to charge over USB-C as well.

I wonder how people would feel about:

MagSafe + 2 USB C, all on the left

vs

3 USB C, 2 on one side and 1 on the other

I don't care much about MagSafe, but it is sometimes annoying to have to plug everything on the left. If given the option, I might pick the extra USB (which could also be used for data/monitor/etc. when not being used for charging, of course.

MagSafe’s great because nobody in your house will run off with your cable to charge their phone or tablet or Switch controller or whatever.

Every time that happens buy two more cables. It will stop happening.

Isn't this exactly the same as flexoptix and FS have been doing for years?

Ubiquiti doesn't invent anything; they make it cheap with a better UI.

Better UI is stretching it a bit... Maybe for the amateur/enthusiast (homelab) market...

I certainly don't need or want their rack augmented reality... 'feature'? fad? And their clunky web UI is both limiting and slowing me down. Thanks, I'm perfectly fine with a console and simple LEDs.

That’s their exact niche.

That and SMB’s. I’ve seen a lot of Ubiquity gear in small hotels, random small businesses, etc. Especially hotels, they seem to be super common (not big chains like Hilton or whatever but smaller boutique hotels).

The UI for the fs.com programmer is merely "not bad". This could easily be great in comparison.

> I certainly don't need or want their rack augmented reality... 'feature'? fad?

I find it mind-boggling that you can hardly buy _RAM_ anymore without programmable RGB LEDs, but that managed switches do not come with a per-port RGB LED to let me mark VLANs or cables that need replacements or whatever. Come on! A nice little square all around the port, please. Instead, we get the QR code plus an app that needs to talk with the cloud.

Some of their switches have Etherlighting™.

Yes, if you have special Ubnt-brand cables. And still, I want this to be standard everywhere, not a niche thing from one manufacturer :-) (I know Facebook has some on their 100G switches, too.)

I'm pretty sure that the only thing special about the cables is the boot that transmits the light from the port's LED array fairly well.

The trick with neutral in the leaf is that you have to hold the gear selector in the neutral direction for about a second. No relation to brake pedal timing as far as I can tell. No idea why neutral has that delay given none of the other “gears” do.

Because neutral isn't a thing they expect the lowest common denominator consumer the car is designed to be usable for to be using on the daily so they gate it behind some stupid extra motions.

It's like a "lite" version of how some cars make you enter a stupid cheat code to reset your oil change reminder or some other thing that should just be in settings.

One random preprint I found (https://arxiv.org/html/2505.09598v2) estimates inference is 90% of the total energy usage. From some googling around, everything seems to agree that inference dominates (or is at least comparable to) training on the large commonly-used models.

I was less surprised that inference dominates training after I read that chatgpt is serving billions of requests per day.