I am the same way. I am a music lover, I am good with pitch, can accurately tune a guitar from new strings to within a few cents with no reference. But I can barely clap along with a metronome for more than a few bars. I have had years of lessons but my lack of rhythm really makes it almost impossible to progress despite putting in a lot of practice. My wife who plays guitar for fun will walk up while I am laboring over a piece that I have been working on for weeks and do a better job after two tries. It’s really demoralising! It feels like most people can do rhythm like walking or breathing, but for me it takes 100% CPU and leaves little for anything else.

I am a color science and image expert and couldn’t make heads nor tails of the dark table UI. I wanted to like it but it is just so horrible to use that I couldn’t stick with it.

Ah mine do this. It’s suuuper annoying. I assumed it was because I use them connected to my work Linux workstation.

One flaw with this assumption is that images are available in literally counts of trillions to train on. With 3D models there are virtually no production quality models freely available to train on. Even companies like ILM or Weta have nowhere near the number of models that would be needed to train a robust modelling AI

The thing is CAD models look perfect. They are completely un-editable in that state however. You have to go back to the cad program to make edits to the original solid model.

> The thing is CAD models look perfect.

No they don't. I am explicitly saying they often have the exact topology issues that are showcased here. They don't have some of the other issues - but a huge chunk of this article is about bad topology. I have imported hundreds of step files into CG software that have absolutely horrific topology, because one cares about producing real things and the other is about CG modeling.

> They are completely un-editable in that state however.

This is also untrue. I do plenty of hard surface modeling work on imported step files. Including the retopology I've talked about.

> You have to go back to the cad program to make edits to the original solid model.

If you need to modify it for production, yeah? But the whole use case here seems to be ecommerce website uses. In which case you can 100% take a cad file you've imported and modify it (if you managed to get a good topo out of it) for visual/aesthetic stuff.

(Some CAD software actually does a good job exporting - I have a moi3d license specifically because it has way better exports topology wise than solidworks or fusion. I build shit in solidworks and send it to moi before opening it in blender or houdini to do any render work)

That’s not really how 3D modelling works. You can’t just improve some of the model. You have to improve all of it. Fixing to top of the paddle also changes how the junction at the handle goes and so on. That’s why no one has solved ai 3D modelling yet. It’s like asking a gymnast to learn how to do the second half of a handspring first, and then for step 2 they can learn the first half. It doesn’t work like that.

What about the triangle soup issue? Could a model tackle that by somehow combining triangles?

If they were the guy responsible for maintaining the hydraulics on the logging machinery, who gives a shit if they know anything about trees.

Logging isn't forestry.

I have one on my desk at work. I use it 2-3 times a week for quickly calculating things. It gives me a good feeling every time I use it.

A micro is far superior on both these metrics.

The materials that go into a chip are nothing. The process of making the chip is roughly the same no matter the power of it. So having one chip that can satisfy a large range of customers needs is so much better than wasting development time making a custom just good enough chip for each.

> The materials that go into a chip are nothing.

They really aren't. Every material that goes into every chip needs to be sourced from various mines around the world, shipped to factories to be assembled, then the end goods need to be shipped again around the world to be sold or directly dumped.

High power, low power, it all has negative environmental impact.

That doesn't contradict the point, though. The negative impact on the environment is not reduced by making a less powered chip.

No, hence "all around."

Which materials are they and how would you suggest doing it with fewer materials?

ultra pure water production itself is responsible for untold amounts of hydroflouric acid and ammonia , and most etching processes have an F-Gas involved, and most plants that do this work have tremendously high energy (power) costs due to stability needs/hvac.

it's not 'just sand'.

How would you suggest doing it with fewer materials?

The claim was that "the materials that go into a chip are nothing". Arguing that that is not that case does not really put someone on the hook to explain or even have any clue how to do it better.

In theory, graphene based semiconductors would eliminate a lot of need for shipping and mining.

Maybe. They have the potential for faster semiconductors, but only after adequate modifications. Graphene isn't a semiconductor, and it isn't obvious that we'll find a way to fix that without (or even with) rare resources.

Why are you on a technology site?

I'm not sure why you're asking this or what you're insinuating. The site is called Hacker News, it should be open to anarcho- and eco- hackers too. Not all of believe in infinite growth.

Do you want to expand on why you're on this site?

I've been here for more than 15 years and I'm not the person I was when I signed up or when I went through life in a startup.