Aurornis

The cheap ones use very simply analog transmission techniques to send a video image. The quality is just enough to see where you’re flying the drone, but it’s much less than you would expect from a security camera.

There are digital options available but once you price the digital transmitter and receiver it’s going to be in the hundreds of dollars, not low tens. Amazing that it’s as cheap as it is, but there’s still a price.

The parts you linked are just cameras, not analog transmitters. It’s a cheap camera sensor with just enough circuitry to get a low res analog signal out.

If you couldn’t tell, this is LLM generated quackery.

Any claims about throwing away 2/3rds of the model weights (not just quantizing them) and maintaining “near lossless” quality are simply false.

I clicked on the benchmarks page expecting some quality benchmarks but only saw speed benchmarks before I gave up and stopped scrolling.

The claims don’t even make sense. It’s showing “100% GPU resident” for a model of a size that cannot fit into the GPU.

> LLMs "solved" that by just ignoring the previous rules and training on everything, which lets the necessary world knowledge seep back in.

True, but could be taken the wrong way. LLMs were also not able to train on that private customer data. They trained on so much general public data that they became capable enough to operate generally even on private data they had not been trained on.

That was the big breakthrough. I know that’s what you were trying to say, but on sites like this there are a lot of people who will see a comment like that and assume that LLMs like Sonnet were fed all of the private customer data that was withheld from training other models.

Not astroturf. If you do a blinded study where some people get testosterone, most of them are going to report feeling better at first.

That situation changes as the body stabilizes, the testes atrophy, and the brain gets used to the new set point.

That's why the TRT forums and Reddits are filled with complaints about "my TRT stopped working" when the honeymoon period ends.

> Guys that hop on TRT and say its the best they've felt since their 20s.

This is called the "honeymoon period" and it's a well known thing in TRT forums: Most people feel amazing when they start, then that amazing feeling stabilizes out to something much less over months or years.

Disturbing a lot of biological systems works this way: There are a lot of drugs and medicines that make people feel amazing when they first start taking them, but after some time they stabilize out to something much less. This is true of everything from caffeine through benzos, opioids, and amphetamines.

That doesn't mean there isn't a therapeutic benefit, but many people are disappointed to learn that they're not going to spend the rest of their lives feeling as amazing as they did from those first weeks and months.

There are some secondary problems with TRT where long-term usage, especially when the dose isn't quite right (often higher than it should be as people chase those feelings) leads to secondary problems as other hormones are thrown off.

It's surprisingly common for people on TRT to end up with libido issues, for example. Complete opposite of what most people think. Your local broscience master will tell you it's a matter of using a few different additional hormone modulating drugs on top, but most of the time when I see people go this direction they end up with very unstable moods and may never find a solution other than tapering off.

Which leads to the other big problem with TRT: Taking testosterone causes the testicles to atrophy. It's a common joke about body builders, but it's a real thing that happens. A lot of people experiment with TRT for a few months or years and then decide it's not worth it any more, at which point they discover that they can't just quit taking it because they're physically dependent. There are some ways to try to restart the body's systems, but it doesn't work for every situation.

The Artificial Analysis charts are great, but be warned that they show max effort by default.

Max effort is nice for revealing the limits of a model, but it's almost never used in practice.

If you scroll down to the coding charts you can start adding Fable 5.2, Opus 5.5, and others at more normal difficulty settings.

Fable 5.2 on medium looks quite attractive compared to Opus 5.5 high/xhigh

Fable 5.2 on max (the default) looks like a good way to light your money on fire.

Please read the comment thread you're responding to.

I'll quote it for you:

> A Pi 4 is my son's primary computer

So, no, I am not making up a situation.

> And at $400 it doesn't make sense for it to be.

Why are so many people angry at a situation that doesn't exist?

The use cases above don't need a $385 16GB Raspberry Pi 5.

Did you notice they weren't even using a Raspberry Pi 5?

A 1GB Raspberry Pi 4, which would run those applications, is $35 and in stock: https://www.pishop.us/product/raspberry-pi-4-model-b-1gb/

GCompris and Tux Racer were launched over 20 years ago.

They would be fine with the low RAM models.

This is my point above: Most people should ignore the 16GB model.

This applies to all RAM.

The cost of 16GB Raspberry Pi is driven by the RAM. Everything else is a small addition to the BOM cost.

The 16GB was introduced when it was affordable. Now it's just becoming a mental obstacle for buyers who think they should only purchase something if they can get the top model. That's why I suggest everyone pretend it doesn't exist. Unless you really need it for something, the 4GB or 8GB can do most things.

> Sure... but... the original $35 RasPi is closer to a modern RasPi Zero 1, which looks like it's selling for $45 - $50 on Amazon.

You want the Pi Zero 2 W, which is under $20 when it's in stock.

You also need to buy somewhere other than Amazon, which is where sellers go to unload their inventory at exorbitant prices between restocks.

The entry level option is the Raspberry Pi Zero 2 W, which is still $15

https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-zero-2-w/

It also has twice the RAM of the original Raspberry Pi (at launch), plus WiFi, plus a lot of CPU power, and a powerful GPU, and a lot more.

I have a 16GB model and I use that much RAM for some specific development work on the Raspberry Pi platform, but now I wish they had never announced the 16GB model. It has created so many complaints from people who shouldn't and won't be buying it.

> There are much better options on the used market for people needing small computers/servers.

Most people realized that the Raspberry Pi was never a great desktop or server replacement a long time ago.

It's an embedded system and it's best when used for embedded applications.

These are still purchased and used by hobbyists, but the people who were trying to use them as servers or desktops are not the target audience.

Unless you have a true, irreplaceable need for a 16GB model, everyone should just pretend they don't exist.

Most hobby use cases would be fine with the 1GB, 4GB, or even 8GB versions.

I thought we all established long ago that trying to use a Raspberry Pi like a computer or laptop replacement was not a good idea, because every past Rapsberry Pi thread has been inundated with comments encouraging everyone to get a NUC or a used computer instead.

The Raspberry Pi is great if you need what it offers, but at some point the mainstream Raspberry Pi community lost the plot and started treating them like laptop, desktop, or server replacements, which they were never great at. Now that the people who need a desktop or server have re-discovered that they're better off using an actual desktop or an actual server for their purposes, we should get back to treating these like embedded systems boards.

True networking has always been about building a mutually beneficial relationship. That's hard, though. It requires being genuine and being able to offer real help.

So people instead try to shotgun their message to everyone. They hope someone will give them something helpful and don't care what all of the other recipients think.

So if you want success, try to be more on the mutually beneficial side and less on the spammer side.

> Who cares if someones spying on the process of fine tuning a model to help us pick strawberries?

Privacy should be a default. It doesn’t matter what you’re doing.

It’s also unlikely they know what’s in the VMs until after they look at it.

> The world before 2000 was quaint. Everyone thought youd stay pretty local and community would persist.

As someone whose childhood extended into the pre-2000 era, this statement feels confusing. My childhood involved a lot of friends moving away, and a steady number of new students moving in.

The number doesn’t feel that much different than what I see in my own kids’ classes now.

I will have to look for some statistics, but I don’t think 2000 was an inflection point in people moving around. If anything, I feel like I know fewer adults moving now because people have more opportunity to work remote than we did in pre-2000 times.

The surprising part is that neutering males after puberty showed the larger increase:

> However, mice that were neutered as adults gained the most. The procedure stretched their lives by about 33%, compared with 19% and 26% increases, respectively, for the animals fixed before or after puberty.

That trend goes opposite of what would be expected from a simple area under the curve model where presence of the testes correlated with reduced lifespan.

The link between male hormones and aging has always been interesting but I think there’s going to be a renewed interest as TRT clinics have become common and even men who aren’t hypogonadal can now be prescribed TRT after a short consult with a doctor from their local clinic who never turns anyone down.

Among the people I know who were more cavalier with TRT and keeping their testosterone levels at the top of the normal range for years, all of them have started talking about how it feels they’ve aged. Anecdotally, they look older than their age to me, but I didn’t realize how much testosterone was associated with accelerated aging until I looked at the research. I always thought the visual changes were a side effect of the associated hair growth changes, facial structure changes, and lifestyle factors that often come along with the people who use testosterone at levels above what’s needed to get toward the median of the range.

The numbers in this study preprint are close enough that I’d want to see more replication, but it would suggest that the relationship is more complicated than simply having androgens accelerate aging.

> (you can see it openly discussed in their Discords).

Can you explain? I haven’t used Runpod and don’t have time to search through a Discord to figure out what someone is talking about.

> It saddens me that what was once a rare joy and way to meet interesting people is now being abused to send cold emails.

The cold email pitch thing has always happened, but it’s getting worse. It also depends highly on the content of your posts, with the number of cold emails varying massively depending on how much your comments look like you’re in a position to benefit someone else.

I had to switch away from a named Hacker News account to pseudonymous handles a long time ago because the emails I was getting were becoming uncomfortably weird and personal. This was before the sharp 2026 increase in this article, so I missed that.

Even when I didn’t put my email in my HN profile I was getting some weird responses from people who went through a lot of effort to track me down. These were stalker-ish in nature by virtue of having had to do enough internet research to find my email. The last one I received was weird enough that I started thinking before every comment about whether or not it might trigger an internet stalker, so I chose to switch accounts.

The 2026 increase is probably multi-factorial. There are more social media gurus than ever before pitching hustle culture and cold outreach. The number of people creating startup projects and hustles has also exploded. Every meetup, user group, and group chat is now full of people working on their “startup” which means they’re having Claude build the project while they prompt their phone during work. Everyone is realizing how hard it is to get users and traction, so their attention has shifted from writing the code to hustling for traction or finding. Meetups and community Discords feel risky because the second it becomes known that I have experience and possibly connections they might help I start getting DMs or people lining up to try to become faux-friendly after the meetup for networking purposes. It’s a weird time.

This is another theme I notice in this same cohort: It is not permissible to even suggest that they’re doing anything wrong. Any time someone highlights behaviors or beliefs that have problems or are inconsistent, someone will pop up and blame that on the corporations, too.

So even when these people have turned into a broken clock about being anti-corporate to the point that they’re anti-open-projects, someone will always come along to explain why we can’t fault them and instead everything is the fault of corporations. A normal working class person can not be faulted for their beliefs in this model, because every fault will be transformed into something that can be blamed on a corporation.

Personally I find the erasure of individual thought in this model to be demeaning. You can’t blame everything every individual does on corporations having either made them do it or forced them to believe it through their actions. At some point we have to admit that people’s thoughts and actions are their own.

If someone becomes so bitter that they’re becoming anti-OSM or anti-Wikipedia or anti-OSS, I’m fully okay with holding them to account for their chosen beliefs.

It’s also not a new belief. I remember all of the skepticism about Wikipedia being possible when it was a new idea.

What’s interesting is that most younger people I interact with now have a better idea of what’s possible through crowdsourced collaboration than older people. In the tech world, people who grew up with crowdsourced sites have seen the end state of Stack Overflow and its moderation, or they’ve seen enough controversies around Wikipedia edit wars where controversial topics become battlegrounds to see which moderators can wield the site’s rules more effectively to revert edits they don’t want on the page. On a long enough timeframe, community projects are at high risk of turning into fiefdoms for power hungry moderators.

The younger people grow up seemingly seeing the same things, but having a different experience about what it means. Talk to any younger generation gamer and they’ll have stories about Discord or Minecraft communities collapsing under power tripping moderators. But in the newer world where internet resources are cheap and now that LLMs can help migrate things, they may have established a new Discord or moved the community to a new game server by the end of the week. Their favorite game emulator or other project may have been forked 4 times already and the community will move to another fork again at the first signs of the new maintainer not doing what they like.

> corporations got onboard both as OSM users and stakeholders, and then some idealistic anti-capitalistic people have asked why they should contribute if the map can benefit corps,

Anecdotally, I’ve had a lot of experiences like this with newer generations of people on topics like open source software or community projects: They’ve been trained, usually by a social media niche, to believe that the only good fight is to actively harm corporations. Their idea of the world is a very clear black and white contrast with people on one side and corporations on the other.

Such a clean separation of the world only exists in ideas they get from social media and movies. Encountering a project like OSM or an open source project where the largest users (and for OSS, maybe the largest contributors) are people involved with corporations doesn’t fit into their worldview, so they file it in the “corporate” side of the divide and dislike it.

You need to read the “Starting from” text on their pricing page right before those prices you see.

You can have those lower monthly fees if you pay a higher percentage of your billings.

The article acknowledged that.

> There’s also a “flex” plan which costs $12.65/mo… but that plan now skims an additional 2% on top of the usual ~3% card transaction fees.

The problems with the Harvest acquisition driving up prices has been discussed a lot among consultants and contractors. This isn’t one person reading their billing page wrong. This is happening to all of their customers.

It’s how the acquiring company operates: Acquire companies, increase billing, accept that most customers will leave but some will stay and make up for the losses.

Some of the math I see in this thread justifying local LLM hardware reminds me of “hobby math” where someone wants to justify a hobby expenditure and tortures the comparisons until they think they’re winning.

You do local LLM stuff either because you’re strict about privacy or because you want to play with it.

Any argument that you’re going to replace a Claude subscription with a highly quantized model at 20 tokens/sec is delusional thinking.

> If it's comparable with haiku, that's $13/day or 47 days til break-even

With a $20/month subscription you can basically run Haiku nonstop and never have to worry about limits.

Your comparisons continue to make little sense.

> It's also unclear if anthropic always serves you f16 versions of their models. My friends who use claude a lot complain about intelligence that varies from day to day - but that's entirely anecdotal.

This myth has been debunked over and over. There are numerous sites that run benchmarks against the providers repeatedly and the results are always within the same margin of error.

> Hardware hasn't been improving at a rapid rate

Yes it has. GPUs and consumer hardware today is much faster than it was 5 years ago and it will be much faster again in 5 years.

> and clearly these companies are losing money and burning investor cash at a ridiculous rate

As every startup should.

The inference is not losing money. I don’t know if you missed it, but it was revealed a while ago that they’re actually making decent money on inference.

What are you talking about? Anthropic doesn’t have debt. They have so much cash that they earn a billion dollars a year in interest.

Customers don’t have to pay off a company’s debt.

It feels like some of these anti-AI rants don’t even care about the facts. They have a story they believe and they’re going to be angry about it no matter what the facts are.

> For personal projects that don't matter?

If it doesn’t matter then do what you want. By definition, it doesn’t matter.

Some of us actually use these tools, so it does matter. You do have to consider things when it matters.

I was talking about AI developed tooling.

It’s amazing that you can get something usable quickly, but then every time you use the software you’re back in the AI working on your tool.

Using AI to build the tool becomes the project, replacing the project that led you to think about vibecoding a tool.