Most articles I click on in the HN homepage turn out to be written by AI, judging from the phrasing. I'm weirded out by the fact that people don't seem to find it important to write their own thoughts down. The writing in TFA is clearly supervised by a human, but still, the wording is not human at all.
Tbh, I'm getting more frustrated with the ever-coming flood of "Bah I didn't read because it was obvious AI blah blah" which seemingly every single submission HAS to come with nowadays on HN, god forbid someone is more interested in the content than the flow of the words.
If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead, and we could discuss those or even correct the linked page itself, as it seems to be a wiki. But general complaints that could be copy-pasted for any submission, just so you can feel heard about that you think this was AI written, gets so tiring to read for every submission.
It is unreasonable to expect “specific complaints” about AI vomit like this, because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it. It’s simply not feasible to give specific criticisms, because the criticism is with all of it.
It’s like submitting a 10 page pull request to someone and then getting mad because the person didn’t give comments on every single snippet of code. The issue isn’t the snippets of code, the issue is the attitude that led someone to believe a 10 page PR is appropriate to begin with.
> It is unreasonable to expect “specific complaints” about AI vomit like this, because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it. It’s simply not feasible to give specific criticisms, because the criticism is with all of it.
But how would that make the "I won't read this because it feels like AI" comments more interesting to read?
No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.
It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written" or not in the comments, although I'd hope it'd be considered vastly off-topic.
> No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well
The front page of HN is limited real estate. I visit HN to discover and read interesting and quality content. Whether or not I am “forced” to read it, every piece of AI vomit that’s on the front page is taking a spot away from the real human content that I (and others) really want to see.
> here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written"
I genuinely find this discussion in the comments to be of more value than reading the AI content in the article.
People will discuss the content in front of them. If you don’t want that discussion to be about AI content, then the solution is to not submit (or upvote) AI content.
To expand on your previous point, "because the criticism is with all of it", I think the criticism is really with the HN community allowing so much of it to reach the front page.
A little bit would be tolerable, but the ENTIRE front page is garbage like this now.
I was hesitant to post my comment. It's the first time I've complained about this on HN I think. And it's not only about the flow of the words at all, it's more about reading something that no one wrote. Especially if it's about a project that seems interesting, having AI written text tells me it's maybe not the passion project I otherwise would think it was.
You're right to complain. Writing code whose principal job is to be compiled and executed by a computer is not at all the same as writing prose whose job is (hopefully still) to be read by a person.
Up to a couple years ago, the latter was essentially a product of lever-less human attention.
So because this article seems AI written to you, this business and project which is on it's second iteration and been around for years already, maybe isn't a project of passion in your eyes?
Seems like a huge logical leap to make, based on things that it seems you cannot even exactly quantify here, as you're still not pointing out what's wrong with the text, just saying that the text is somehow "lacking of soul" or something like that.
> If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead
Accusing text of being written by an LLM is a specific complaint about the text. It's shorthand for "the text is overly verbose and uses the typical clichés LLMs are known for, which makes the text unpleasant to read (it's too much text and too many empty clichés) and also makes me distrust the text, because now I'm not sure anyone even looked over it and made sure it says what they wanted to say."
It's just shorter to say "this sounds like it's written by AI."
I like being warned about AI generated content before I waste time reading. If the author couldn’t even be bothered to write it, it’s a good sign I shouldn’t be bothered to read it.
But still be bothered to leave a generic complain on HN, which you ideally can copy-paste across all potential LLM-written comments? Something doesn't add up there, don't spend energy writing the comments if you cannot even be bothered to read it because no one was bothered to write it.
It reminds me of high school, ages ago, when a friend would go on and on about how Depeche Mode weren’t musicians and how nobody cares about electronic music. I’m a little nostalgic for the hours, cumulatively probably weeks, that I heard about just how much he didn’t care about Depeche Mode.
> But still be bothered to leave a generic complain on HN, which you ideally can copy-paste across all potential LLM-written comments?
I mean, not on HN, since it's generally unproductive conversation, but yes? You say this as if there is some gotcha or contradiction there, but there is not. It is far, far, far less work to write a short comment than to read pages and pages of AI slop.
But it has a problem common in AI, where it makes bold claims "we believe this is the only way to make a truly meaningful contribution to the open-source community and to education" without explaining, and too much filler ("...All the messy stuff companies usually keep behind closed doors. This is uncomfortable. We've never been this open before, and there's a real instinct to hide the unfinished work, the wrong turns, and the arguments...")
"Make me"? My god the entitlement... It's either free information, or close the fucking tab, no one here or elsewhere owes you anything, if you don't like it, why are you forcing yourself to consume it? Personally I just close the window/tab when the text isn't interesting/high enough quality, LLMs or otherwise, I'd suggest you'd learn to do the same if this is the first time you're using the web.
> If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead, and we could discuss those or even correct the linked page itself, as it seems to be a wiki. But general complaints that could be copy-pasted for any submission, just so you can feel heard about that you think this was AI written, gets so tiring to read for every submission.
No. And the reason is pretty simple: if you couldn't bother to write it, why should I bother to read it?
And that's the problem with AI: it creates floods of that stuff and makes it hard to differentiate the good-faith use from the bad-faith use. The default can't be "reader, waste your time, even on garbage." A reader-respectful norm needs to be set, and those comments you complain about are part of that. The people need to learn that they've got to put in the work if they want to be read (at least by serious audiences).
On the one hand, I get what you mean. Some genuinely interesting projects are immediately dismissed because AI was involved.
On the other hand, I have two real problems with AI writing.
1. LLM prose is genuinely unpleasant to read. Its the exact same way that I strongly dislike reading LinkedIn posts or email marketing copy. It's all the same slimy tone that's using a certain sentence structure and rhetoric to try to be interesting without real substance.
2. Sometimes it feels like someone asking you to read an article with no punctuation or grammar: the author couldn't put in time/effort to make this enjoyable to read, so now I have to spend more time/effort reading it.
Personally, I don't read through all marketing copy to see if "this one is going to be good", nor do I want to spend time providing constructive critical feedback on it.
What exact parts from the submission are "genuinely unpleasant to read" right now? Highlighting those could make it better rather than just filling HN with "LLM texts is boring to read".
> Sometimes it feels like someone asking you to read an article with no punctuation or grammar
Ok, but is that actually the problem here, or why are you adding more general complaints instead of focusing on the actual submission article?
If you don't like it, don't read it, don't contribute to the discussion, I don't understand this obsession with "must let others know I don't like LLM writing, although I'm not 100% sure this submission actually suffers from the issues I don't like with LLM writing".
It is exhausting to always have to read word salads with little content.
Every single fucking article with 20 lines of introduction before you get a chance for actual content. LLM slop then dilutes the information, and LLM slop always read the same way. You know, how easy it is to spot LLM generated content, it is actually refreshing when you can tell it's a human.
> It is exhausting to always have to read word salads with little content.
Agreed, but you know how others solve this problem? We close the tab, move on with our lives, without feeling the need to leave the generic "This seems like it was mostly written with LLMs" slopplaint HN comment.
Why is it okay for you to post a comment complaining about people posting comments complaining about AI posts? Why don't you just move on with your life instead of posting a complaint on HN about others' complaints?
I think this is due to lazy prompting. It isn’t hard to get an LLM to write concisely, with a logical flow and to be direct with the point you want made. I’d rather read something an LLM has written in this manner than a lot of things I come across written by humans.
Regarding padding out word counts, I see this more often in newspapers and magazines than I do in AI-land. It’s like Netflix shows trying to meet an 8 or 10 episode minimum - horribly boring with unnecessary filler.
It's not just short-sighted of <these commenters you hate>; It's self-destructive!
* It's the job of the consumer to correct and edit the content they consume
* Content creators have it hard enough ——— prompt-crafting and imagining transformative and disruptive new horizons in tech
* So what if the prose is 4x longer than it should be? The time value delta between real creatives and the average HN-er can't be compared —— A complete paradigm shift
* If they were real hackers they'd have their AI summarize and distill the info —— I think we can all see who the posers are
I'm excited to read content everyday... 'slop'? That's a coward's word, I see past the prose into the core of the data space, and I'm stronger for it.
Some people -- many people, actually -- use em dashes in their writing. Real people even use contrast to make a point on occasion, believe it or not. It's not AI writing that bothers me, it's the constant complaining about the supposed tells that prove something is AI-written.
I read it and understood the project goal and the difference between the old and new versions. What else is there to get from this? If I want to read good prose I have plenty of books to pick from. This is just a product pitch that effectively communicates the idea.
Repeatedly saying the same thing with slightly different phrasing: "Flipper One isn't an upgrade to Flipper Zero", "Flipper Zero and Flipper One are completely different projects", "Flipper One doesn't replace Flipper Zero"
"Honestly?" and "not just x, but y" appear once, and only half of the lists have exactly three items, making part of your comment factually incorrect; did you just not look closely or did you jump to conclusions because you have an agenda / axe to grind?
I'm actually confused by how people even use LLMs to write these articles. They sound so synthetic that I assume the LLM wrote most or all of the text, but how?
Do they just write a bullet list of notes and then tell the LLM to go wild?
I just long for some sort of attestation system where, if you want to use an em dash, you must first drink a verification can or eat some verification doritos to prove you are a meatbag with a digestive tract
Y'all have become these super annoying human captchas where I have to proof that I am actually a human being who writes their own thoughts in their own words, just because you feel like accusingly saying: "But you used AI for writing!"
It's getting super frustrating and annoying.
Yes, loads of articles are written with AI. So what? Don't judge a fucking book by it's fucking cover.
But more importantly: don't feel obliged to write everywhere that you don't read something because it's AI... Just don't read it.
Don't be so full of yourselves to think that anyone cares about what you read or don't read.
First time I've heard anyone call the Flipper Zero "simple" and "focused", most people seemed to have considered it a "swiss-knife" meant to just house a bunch of features and radios, meanwhile the One has less features but more connectivity and I/O.
But apparently you're not alone in feeling this, but I don't understand what from the submission makes you and others believe so, what exactly gave you this impression?
This looks flippin' amazing, but also like the definition of project scope creep. I imagine it will be brilliant, unaffordable, surprisingly cheap, terrible and awesome (in both senses of the word) all at the same time. 3GPP really needs a light shining through it.
I sincerely hope I work out a way of getting someone else to buy the thing for me. And the push towards all in-tree source is fantastic. Genuinely impressed.
> but also like the definition of project scope creep.
To me it seems like the opposite, it has more connectivity and I/O than the Zero, but also scaled down, while using better materials, like they decided to outsource the project scope creep to the community, which makes sense to me.
Man, they put 2 processors in the thing and are building their own OS. They even say they are not sure how to get it accomplished.
Scope creep to hell and back. Could just let the device get turned off like literally any other device on earth, and not have to build a whole new fucking OS to get it running.
Does anyone know why the binary blobs cannot be reverse engineered in the age of AI and recompiled to closely match the original source? Is it for legal reasons? Is it firmware signatures?
Many silicon vendors, when providing said binary blobs to a device OEM or even just documentation or source code for the binary blobs, will make companies agree to a license or other legal terms which prohibits reverse engineering. Often the direct recipient of the binary blobs (the OEM of the device) cannot legally let their employees nor contractors perform the reverse engineering.
Generally, unless a similar license or legal terms are required to be agreed to by the end user, nothing stops the end user from reversing said binary blobs. But before you attempt this, be sure you fully understand every legal document which was presented to you by the device vendor. Click-through EULAs included.
They probably can many things but I think things like memory timing is something you can't just easily reverse engineer from a blob. You need to test every state that the device can be in and see how the blob responds which is quite difficult.
Her is a similar story of creating a smartphone that exclusively runs FLOSS on the main CPU and has WiFi and modem on M.2 cards: https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/
Can someone explain why Flipper is making these decisions, or what advantages Flipper One has vs a Flipper Zero, RPI, and Linux machine?
The AI writing doesn’t help.
EDIT: looking more, it seems like the goal is to be a fun project like Playdate, except a Linux multi-tool instead of game console. Which is…actually great, a step towards healing today’s corporatized tech culture. It’s unfortunate that the website non-explains this with AI and marketing speak.
EDIT2: I wrote too soon, AI is making me too cynical. My only remaining critique is that they explain the motive instead of just stating features and repeating “we’re doing something exciting and important [for reasons not really explained]”
> what advantages Flipper One has vs a Flipper Zero
They work at different layers, the Zero is physical, the One is network. There is almost no overlap between the two, so one doesn't have an advantage over the other.
> RPI
It has a battery, with attention given to power management, and is a complete unit, not just a board.
> Linux machine
You mean like a laptop? You can probably do all this on a Linux laptop PC, but the Flipper One is a smaller, more specialized device, with a firmware as open as the manufacturers will let them.
> My only remaining critique is that they explain the motive instead of just stating features
Can't answer for the One, as I don't think even they themselves know what it'll end up being when done, but for the Zero, the biggest benefit have been the whole "one device = one large community = lots of firmware = lots of software" thing which gets a lot of benefits from one cohesive community around one device, I'm guessing the One would also get similar benefits with this.
As a current Zero user, I'd definitively get a One once available, just the addition of the PTT-button feels worth it to me, but almost all the other changes are good (IMO) as well, don't really see any drawbacks from the design they're aiming for now, besides the modularity will make things slightly more complicated, but also comes with a ton of obvious benefits.
Can you elaborate on how you use the zero? I got all excited, bought one, and it’s in a drawer. I’m way deep into coding, CNC machining, making of all sorts… but I just never incorporated it.
Anything that anyone ever writes from now on has people coming out of the woodwork to accuse it of being AI-written. I too bemoan what the written word is coming to, but I am also so over the Slop Police, and wish they would just keep the conclusions of their sleuthing to themselves from now on.
I usually give the benefit of the doubt, and regret accusing this article. It's the articles and comments that are obviously AI and score 100% on Pangram that I still feel should be called out: the writing is hard to understand and the underlying message rarely makes good insight or discussion.
I think this is the optimal outcome of the “Slop Police.” Normalization of these acknowledgements. Transparency is good, like a journalist declaring whether they have vested interests.
Cool, but I think they're holding themselves back with that weird form-factor. I would've preferred if they'd included a full QWERTY keyboard, like the the GPD Pocket 4[1] or the GPD Win Mini. With a proper keyboard, I could write code on the go, easily edit files, navigate a terminal and mess with things... and do so much more in general.
Also, 8GB RAM is barely enough these days, whereas the GPD comes with upto 64GB RAM - and an X86 CPU too, which means you can run your favorite Linux distro and all your apps without any compatibility issues.
I really don't see a reason why I should buy the Flipper One.
I dunno, I loved the form factor of Flipper Zero, with the addition of a PTT and a more rugged design, this is quite literally an instant buy for me. It has sufficient connectivity that it'd be trivial to bring your own keyboard, in whatever size you'd like, and I'm surely not alone in not wanting a static keyboard attached to the device as I'd never have any use for it, the Flipper (in my view) is a portable device you use for enumerating and executing, but everything else I do on my desktop transferring data to/from the Flipper.
I'm also not sure what I'd do with more than 8GB of RAM, I could literally run my entire OS + dekstop environment + the current applications I have open on my workstation desktop right now with that, and still have room to spare.
We don't know the cost of the One yet. Besides, the GPD can also be used for playing AAA games, and the keyboard makes it far more useful as a general purpose PC.
Not to mention you'd need REALLY large and durable pants/shorts pockets to fit a 27cm X 5cm X 20cm device that weights more than 1.5kg (yes, kilos!) compared to what the Flipper One will end up being.
If you're strictly taking about the Zero, I'd agree with you, but with the One they're entering a new market. I mean, kind of people who like to mess around with Linux and do hacker-y network-y things are also generally the kind of people who would prefer to use a keyboard, the kind who would love the extra hardware grunt to speed up tools like hashcat.
And of course, the One will be cheaper than a full-fledged x86 handheld, but if you're willing to spend a bit more, you can do so so much more - it becomes a more practical device.
It's a pretty normal thing to do for small LCD screens. Linux has had SPI framebuffer support via fbtft subsystem (in staging tree now, previously was out of tree) for well over a decade. It works quite well.
i can understand blob for radios: by only using a signed blob you are restricting a malicious user from abusing the radio.
However, the problem with binary blobs is that they are binary blobs: no sources, can't make changes, can't adapt them to work on a new system, can't audit them. Free folks have always argued that a computer will never be free if there are binary blobs in there
(well: the last part is not really true, there is always a way to have a custom firmware, or make an audit, but the manufacturer will do that only for elite customers. Not for open source folks.)
>We want to train a specialized AI model that knows Flipper One's internals and applications inside out, so general-purpose models won't cut it. We invite the community to get involved.
I think a general purpose model would actually cut it pretty well if it has access to proper documentation and search. Since everything will be OSS, the model can have "full" introspection of the system.
If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead, and we could discuss those or even correct the linked page itself, as it seems to be a wiki. But general complaints that could be copy-pasted for any submission, just so you can feel heard about that you think this was AI written, gets so tiring to read for every submission.
It’s like submitting a 10 page pull request to someone and then getting mad because the person didn’t give comments on every single snippet of code. The issue isn’t the snippets of code, the issue is the attitude that led someone to believe a 10 page PR is appropriate to begin with.
But how would that make the "I won't read this because it feels like AI" comments more interesting to read?
No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.
It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written" or not in the comments, although I'd hope it'd be considered vastly off-topic.
The front page of HN is limited real estate. I visit HN to discover and read interesting and quality content. Whether or not I am “forced” to read it, every piece of AI vomit that’s on the front page is taking a spot away from the real human content that I (and others) really want to see.
> here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written"
I genuinely find this discussion in the comments to be of more value than reading the AI content in the article.
People will discuss the content in front of them. If you don’t want that discussion to be about AI content, then the solution is to not submit (or upvote) AI content.
Up to a couple years ago, the latter was essentially a product of lever-less human attention.
Seems like a huge logical leap to make, based on things that it seems you cannot even exactly quantify here, as you're still not pointing out what's wrong with the text, just saying that the text is somehow "lacking of soul" or something like that.
Accusing text of being written by an LLM is a specific complaint about the text. It's shorthand for "the text is overly verbose and uses the typical clichés LLMs are known for, which makes the text unpleasant to read (it's too much text and too many empty clichés) and also makes me distrust the text, because now I'm not sure anyone even looked over it and made sure it says what they wanted to say."
It's just shorter to say "this sounds like it's written by AI."
I mean, not on HN, since it's generally unproductive conversation, but yes? You say this as if there is some gotcha or contradiction there, but there is not. It is far, far, far less work to write a short comment than to read pages and pages of AI slop.
But it has a problem common in AI, where it makes bold claims "we believe this is the only way to make a truly meaningful contribution to the open-source community and to education" without explaining, and too much filler ("...All the messy stuff companies usually keep behind closed doors. This is uncomfortable. We've never been this open before, and there's a real instinct to hide the unfinished work, the wrong turns, and the arguments...")
Almost like they're trained on LinkedIn or something.
No. And the reason is pretty simple: if you couldn't bother to write it, why should I bother to read it?
And that's the problem with AI: it creates floods of that stuff and makes it hard to differentiate the good-faith use from the bad-faith use. The default can't be "reader, waste your time, even on garbage." A reader-respectful norm needs to be set, and those comments you complain about are part of that. The people need to learn that they've got to put in the work if they want to be read (at least by serious audiences).
On the other hand, I have two real problems with AI writing.
1. LLM prose is genuinely unpleasant to read. Its the exact same way that I strongly dislike reading LinkedIn posts or email marketing copy. It's all the same slimy tone that's using a certain sentence structure and rhetoric to try to be interesting without real substance.
2. Sometimes it feels like someone asking you to read an article with no punctuation or grammar: the author couldn't put in time/effort to make this enjoyable to read, so now I have to spend more time/effort reading it.
Personally, I don't read through all marketing copy to see if "this one is going to be good", nor do I want to spend time providing constructive critical feedback on it.
What exact parts from the submission are "genuinely unpleasant to read" right now? Highlighting those could make it better rather than just filling HN with "LLM texts is boring to read".
> Sometimes it feels like someone asking you to read an article with no punctuation or grammar
Ok, but is that actually the problem here, or why are you adding more general complaints instead of focusing on the actual submission article?
If you don't like it, don't read it, don't contribute to the discussion, I don't understand this obsession with "must let others know I don't like LLM writing, although I'm not 100% sure this submission actually suffers from the issues I don't like with LLM writing".
I like to read, but some writing is more enjoyable than others. If you want to contribute to their wiki, you can do so.
Part of my point is that the line between "written by an LLM" and "written for marketing" is so blurred that you can't always tell anyways.
Every single fucking article with 20 lines of introduction before you get a chance for actual content. LLM slop then dilutes the information, and LLM slop always read the same way. You know, how easy it is to spot LLM generated content, it is actually refreshing when you can tell it's a human.
Agreed, but you know how others solve this problem? We close the tab, move on with our lives, without feeling the need to leave the generic "This seems like it was mostly written with LLMs" slopplaint HN comment.
Which is what i usually do, but if in that moment i am particularly fed up with it i will also leave the comment.
Then there are more zealous combatant that will pollute all the slop posts
Regarding padding out word counts, I see this more often in newspapers and magazines than I do in AI-land. It’s like Netflix shows trying to meet an 8 or 10 episode minimum - horribly boring with unnecessary filler.
It's not just short-sighted of <these commenters you hate>; It's self-destructive!
* It's the job of the consumer to correct and edit the content they consume
* Content creators have it hard enough ——— prompt-crafting and imagining transformative and disruptive new horizons in tech
* So what if the prose is 4x longer than it should be? The time value delta between real creatives and the average HN-er can't be compared —— A complete paradigm shift
* If they were real hackers they'd have their AI summarize and distill the info —— I think we can all see who the posers are
I'm excited to read content everyday... 'slop'? That's a coward's word, I see past the prose into the core of the data space, and I'm stronger for it.
Sincerely, A real human
I don't see the AI 'tells' in this article. What are you noticing? They use a lot of em-dashes but they use them in a very human way.
> Honestly? We're genuinely
> isn't ___ -- it's __
Repeatedly saying the same thing with slightly different phrasing: "Flipper One isn't an upgrade to Flipper Zero", "Flipper Zero and Flipper One are completely different projects", "Flipper One doesn't replace Flipper Zero"
Notably different style from the author's pre-LLM writing, see https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-power... or https://blog.flipper.net/electronics-testing/ for example.
Every list is a set of 3, and most lists have a bolded intro phrase, one even has the famous slopperific emojis
Do they just write a bullet list of notes and then tell the LLM to go wild?
Pretty sure that is what most of them do.
It's getting super frustrating and annoying.
Yes, loads of articles are written with AI. So what? Don't judge a fucking book by it's fucking cover.
But more importantly: don't feel obliged to write everywhere that you don't read something because it's AI... Just don't read it.
Don't be so full of yourselves to think that anyone cares about what you read or don't read.
First one is simple and focused, the second one tries to be & do everything. And frequently never ships.
First time I've heard anyone call the Flipper Zero "simple" and "focused", most people seemed to have considered it a "swiss-knife" meant to just house a bunch of features and radios, meanwhile the One has less features but more connectivity and I/O.
But apparently you're not alone in feeling this, but I don't understand what from the submission makes you and others believe so, what exactly gave you this impression?
I sincerely hope I work out a way of getting someone else to buy the thing for me. And the push towards all in-tree source is fantastic. Genuinely impressed.
To me it seems like the opposite, it has more connectivity and I/O than the Zero, but also scaled down, while using better materials, like they decided to outsource the project scope creep to the community, which makes sense to me.
Scope creep to hell and back. Could just let the device get turned off like literally any other device on earth, and not have to build a whole new fucking OS to get it running.
Generally, unless a similar license or legal terms are required to be agreed to by the end user, nothing stops the end user from reversing said binary blobs. But before you attempt this, be sure you fully understand every legal document which was presented to you by the device vendor. Click-through EULAs included.
https://programbench.com/
It won't be identical, but as long as the A->B test loop can be closed I've had 100% success rate.
The AI writing doesn’t help.
EDIT: looking more, it seems like the goal is to be a fun project like Playdate, except a Linux multi-tool instead of game console. Which is…actually great, a step towards healing today’s corporatized tech culture. It’s unfortunate that the website non-explains this with AI and marketing speak.
EDIT2: I wrote too soon, AI is making me too cynical. My only remaining critique is that they explain the motive instead of just stating features and repeating “we’re doing something exciting and important [for reasons not really explained]”
They work at different layers, the Zero is physical, the One is network. There is almost no overlap between the two, so one doesn't have an advantage over the other.
> RPI
It has a battery, with attention given to power management, and is a complete unit, not just a board.
> Linux machine
You mean like a laptop? You can probably do all this on a Linux laptop PC, but the Flipper One is a smaller, more specialized device, with a firmware as open as the manufacturers will let them.
> My only remaining critique is that they explain the motive instead of just stating features
Go to this page for this: https://docs.flipper.net/one/general/features
As a current Zero user, I'd definitively get a One once available, just the addition of the PTT-button feels worth it to me, but almost all the other changes are good (IMO) as well, don't really see any drawbacks from the design they're aiming for now, besides the modularity will make things slightly more complicated, but also comes with a ton of obvious benefits.
What am I missing? What do you use yours for?
Why do you say there is AI writing?
Love the idea of a hackable ethernet tool though.
Also, 8GB RAM is barely enough these days, whereas the GPD comes with upto 64GB RAM - and an X86 CPU too, which means you can run your favorite Linux distro and all your apps without any compatibility issues.
I really don't see a reason why I should buy the Flipper One.
https://gpdstore.net/gpd-pocket-4/
I'm also not sure what I'd do with more than 8GB of RAM, I could literally run my entire OS + dekstop environment + the current applications I have open on my workstation desktop right now with that, and still have room to spare.
It's clear you want something else, go buy that instead of shitting on other projects maybe?
https://m5stack.com/cardputerzero
And of course, the One will be cheaper than a full-fledged x86 handheld, but if you're willing to spend a bit more, you can do so so much more - it becomes a more practical device.
Even with peripheral DMA this idea sounds terrifying.
I wish someone sent me one of theirs gathering dust for free, lol
Were blobs a big problem before?
However, the problem with binary blobs is that they are binary blobs: no sources, can't make changes, can't adapt them to work on a new system, can't audit them. Free folks have always argued that a computer will never be free if there are binary blobs in there
(well: the last part is not really true, there is always a way to have a custom firmware, or make an audit, but the manufacturer will do that only for elite customers. Not for open source folks.)
does anyone know how much they're thinking for Flipper One?
>> Flipper’s goal is to sell the device for around $350.
I think a general purpose model would actually cut it pretty well if it has access to proper documentation and search. Since everything will be OSS, the model can have "full" introspection of the system.
This project looks similar to Librem 5 to me. The same goal of open drivers and minimal blobs everywhere.