Exactly. A 5080 is just an enthusiast gamer card. If you're part of a large company that requires you to run Blender/3DSMax/etc (read: disney/pixar sized), you're going to have an A6000 in there, or even just a render farm.
Game dev & asset work is probably happy with a 5080 and that's what most rendering/dev machines would have.
The addressable market of "i have 6000 to blow and i need meh performance on anything related to 3D rendering" is small, and benchmarks make it look bigger than it really is.
Ironically the two studios you mentioned don’t actively render on GPUs and it’s an area which shows that even these small SoCs can punch way above their weight if you look at their pure compute power.
Disney’s Hyperion is CPU based and RenderMan XPU is just exiting beta after over a decade.
But while they do stack their workstations with higher end GPUs for artist throughput in viewports it’s mostly just for the higher memory to fit unoptimized scenes in. None of the studios or major films I’ve worked on have had their on desk artists be raster rate gated but just memory gated.
But again, besides the point, because it’s still valuable as a metric to compare with when comparing perf between similar chipsets.
There are already more creatives using their consumer grade hardware to make stuff. And even the studios you mentioned do actually use laptops on the go for parts of their creation pipelines for various things like virtual production scouting etc.
A couple years back, I spray some DEET on my shoes, 5 seconds later, a tiger mosquito tried to bite me on that spot (and yes on the shoe itself, just insane to see it trying ).
Based on my own experience with vibe coding difficult stuff outside of my expertise, I definitely got better outcome with Fuck you, shut up and do it, ffs, you are moron.
First so called vulnerability, isn't how a lot platforms are actually built? Share a link/copy a link, and more often than not, I am sure to have read a warning like "anyone with that link may access that file".
Now should I mention all the screw up I have seen in several Saas 1b+ valuation, including DocuSign/ and more security oriented ones (PIM related etc?).
For any softwares, you need a minimum critical mindset and experiences that you don't usually see.
Well it depends on the url. Usually shareable url where "anyone with the link may access that file" contain a random element that makes it hard to guess if you don't have it (e.g. an UUID).
In other cases the content is at easily guessable path, and that is a whole different story
Thing is, software isn't the issue when building a business - Dropbox being a great example because even now people are like "but that's just rsync-as-a-service". Software and making a business out of it are two different things.
Syncthing doesn't have a well-designed UX. It does what it does, but it's just a bunch of independent shares, and you have to worry about P2P and etc.
I tried it for a while but eventually left it behind because it's just not particularly helpful. You practically have to draw the rest of the owl before it can work well, and at that point you can use any circle.
Sure, if GPT5 says "LGTM." Again, only half-kidding. Access to the source covers a multitude of sins, both real and potential. Control of the source covers the rest.
Right now I sort of trust Dropbox, but considering how much enshittification it has already undergone relative to its original mission statement, the company could do any number of things to lose that trust in a hurry. Someday they will, probably, and I won't be able to do anything about it except complain...
... except that's no longer true. Which is awesome.
Guess how 90% of the code today is done in F500? Offshored to the lowest bidders in India/elsewhere.
I trust more what claude is spouting than any code from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech_(India)
Something no one else would want - a little colored dot next to HN user names keyed to their generation, so I could quickly tell why none of the commenter mentioned AOL.
Great joke, but taking the word literal and not as product name, it makes a lot of sense to describe chrome as a tool to explore the internet.
(Edit: thinking about it, I think generic terms like "Internet Explorer" should not be trademarkable at all, also I just learned, that also Microsoft "stole" the name and had to pay in a settlement..)
No, I think it was meant literally. Like the IT Crowd skit where Jen refers to the Internet Explorer desktop shortcut as "the button for the internet".
reply