The "R1 Computer Use" document outlines strict computer usage guidelines for a specific group (likely employees). It prohibits personal use, unauthorized software installation, and accessing inappropriate content. All computer activity is subject to monitoring and logging. Users are responsible for keeping their accounts secure and reporting any suspicious activity. The policy emphasizes the importance of respecting intellectual property and adhering to licensing agreements. Deviation from these rules may result in disciplinary action.
The article argues against blindly using 100nF decoupling capacitors, advocating for a more nuanced approach based on the specific circuit's needs. It explains that decoupling capacitors counteract the inductance of power supply traces, providing a local reservoir of charge for instantaneous current demands. The optimal capacitance value depends on the frequency and magnitude of these demands. While 100nF might be adequate for lower-frequency circuits, higher-speed designs often require a combination of capacitor values targeting different frequency ranges. The article emphasizes using a variety of capacitor sizes, including smaller, high-frequency capacitors placed close to the power pins of integrated circuits to effectively suppress high-frequency noise and ensure stable operation. Ultimately, effective decoupling requires understanding the circuit's characteristics and choosing capacitor values accordingly, rather than relying on a "one-size-fits-all" solution.
Hacker News users discussing the article about decoupling capacitors generally agree with the author's premise that blindly using 100nF capacitors is insufficient. Several commenters share their own experiences and best practices, emphasizing the importance of considering the specific frequency range of noise and choosing capacitors accordingly. Some suggest using a combination of capacitor values to target different frequency bands, while others recommend simulating the circuit to determine the optimal values. There's also discussion around the importance of capacitor placement and the use of ferrite beads for additional filtering. Several users highlight the practical limitations of ideal circuit design and the need to balance performance with cost and complexity. Finally, some commenters point out the article's minor inaccuracies or offer alternative explanations for certain phenomena.
This project details the creation of a minimalist 64x4 pixel home computer built using readily available components. It features a custom PCB, an ATmega328P microcontroller, a MAX7219 LED matrix display, and a PS/2 keyboard for input. The computer boasts a simple command-line interface and includes several built-in programs like a text editor, calculator, and games. The design prioritizes simplicity and low cost, aiming to be an educational tool for understanding fundamental computer architecture and programming. The project is open-source, providing schematics, code, and detailed build instructions.
HN commenters generally expressed admiration for the project's minimalism and ingenuity. Several praised the clear documentation and the creator's dedication to simplicity, with some highlighting the educational value of such a barebones system. A few users discussed the limitations of the 4-line display, suggesting potential improvements or alternative uses like a dedicated clock or notification display. Some comments focused on the technical aspects, including the choice of components and the challenges of working with such limited resources. Others reminisced about early computing experiences and similar projects they had undertaken. There was also discussion of the definition of "minimal," comparing this project to other minimalist computer designs.
This blog post details a simple 16-bit CPU design implemented in Logisim, a free and open-source educational tool. The author breaks down the CPU's architecture into manageable components, explaining the function of each part, including the Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU), registers, memory, instruction set, and control unit. The post covers the design process from initial concept to a functional CPU capable of running basic programs, providing a practical introduction to fundamental computer architecture concepts. It emphasizes a hands-on approach, encouraging readers to experiment with the provided Logisim files and modify the design themselves.
HN commenters largely praised the Simple CPU Design project for its clarity, accessibility, and educational value. Several pointed out its usefulness for beginners looking to understand computer architecture fundamentals, with some even suggesting its use as a teaching tool. A few commenters discussed the limitations of the simplified design and potential extensions, like adding interrupts or expanding the instruction set. Others shared their own experiences with similar projects or learning resources, further emphasizing the importance of hands-on learning in this field. The project's open-source nature and use of Verilog also received positive mentions.
VexRiscv is a highly configurable 32-bit RISC-V CPU implementation written in SpinalHDL, specifically designed for FPGA integration. Its modular and customizable architecture allows developers to tailor the CPU to their specific application needs, including features like caches, MMU, multipliers, and various peripherals. This flexibility offers a balance between performance and resource utilization, making it suitable for a wide range of embedded systems. The project provides a comprehensive ecosystem with simulation tools, examples, and pre-configured configurations, simplifying the process of integrating and evaluating the CPU.
Hacker News users discuss VexRiscv's impressive performance and configurability, highlighting its usefulness for FPGA projects. Several commenters praise its clear documentation and ease of customization, with one mentioning successful integration into their own projects. The minimalist design and the ability to tailor it to specific needs are seen as major advantages. Some discussion revolves around comparisons with other RISC-V implementations, particularly regarding performance and resource utilization. There's also interest in the SpinalHDL language used to implement VexRiscv, with some inquiries about its learning curve and benefits over traditional HDLs like Verilog.
Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42965954
Hacker News commenters on the "R1 Computer Use" post largely focused on the impracticality of the system for modern usage. Several pointed out the extremely slow speed and limited storage, making it unsuitable for anything beyond very basic tasks. Some appreciated the historical context and the demonstration of early computing, while others questioned the value of emulating such a limited system. The discussion also touched upon the challenges of preserving old software and hardware, with commenters noting the difficulty in finding working components and the expertise required to maintain these systems. A few expressed interest in the educational aspects, suggesting its potential use for teaching about the history of computing or demonstrating fundamental computer concepts.
The Hacker News post titled "R1 Computer Use" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42965954) has a modest number of comments, generating a brief discussion around the linked GitHub repository detailing computer use policies at R1 Capital. While not a highly active thread, several comments offer interesting perspectives.
A recurring theme is the perceived strictness of R1's policies. One commenter likens the rules to those of a high security environment, questioning whether such stringent measures are necessary in a financial firm, albeit one engaged in high-frequency trading. They specifically mention the prohibition of USB drives and restrictions on personal devices as examples of this strictness. This sentiment is echoed by another commenter who expresses surprise at the seemingly extreme limitations, particularly the ban on personal devices and the mandated use of company-issued laptops even for remote work.
Another commenter focuses on the impracticality of some rules, highlighting the restriction on using personal accounts for work-related communication and cloud storage. They argue that such policies hinder productivity and collaboration, especially in a fast-paced environment where quick access to information and seamless communication are crucial. This commenter also questions the blanket prohibition of external drives, suggesting that it might be excessively restrictive.
The discussion also touches upon the security implications of R1's policies. While some acknowledge the need for strong security measures in finance, others debate the effectiveness of the specific rules outlined. One commenter suggests that the focus on physical security, such as USB drives, might be misplaced in the current threat landscape where social engineering and phishing attacks are more prevalent. They argue that investing in employee security awareness training would be a more effective approach.
A few commenters also offer alternative interpretations of the document. One suggests that the rules might be a baseline for employees, with exceptions granted on a case-by-case basis. Another speculates that the strictness could be a reflection of regulatory requirements or specific contractual obligations with clients.
Finally, one comment shifts the focus to the tone of the document, criticizing its perceived authoritarian nature and suggesting that a more collaborative approach to security policy development would be more beneficial.
While not a lengthy discussion, the comments on this Hacker News post provide a range of perspectives on the practicality, effectiveness, and implications of R1 Capital's computer use policies. The discussion highlights the tension between security and productivity, and the challenges of implementing effective security measures in a modern work environment.