As far as I know, there's still no real RISC-V equivalent to Raspberry Pi, and I think that's what early adopters want the most.
The closest thing is probably Orange Pi RV2, but it has an outdated SoC with no RVA23 support, meaning some Linux distros won't even run on it. Its performance is also much poorer than of the RPi5.
Milk-V Titan is a Mini-ITX RISC-V board that has support for UEFI with ACPI and SMBIOS, 1x M key PCIe Gen4 x16 slot with GPU support, 2x USB Type-C (though unfortunately not USB-C PD), and a 12V DC barrel jack.
To add a 2x20 pin (IDE ribbon cable) interface like a Pi: add a USB-to-2x20 pin board, use an RP2040/RP2350 (Pi Pico (uf2 bootloader) over serial over USB or Bluetooth or WiFi; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38007967
The benchmark is well tuned for ARM64 but not so well adapted to RISC-V, especially the vector extensions.
You may still be right of course. The SpaceMIT K3 is exciting because it may still be the first RVA23 hardware but it is not exectly going to launch a RISC-V laptop industry.
There isn't much to tune in some, e.g. the clang benchmark.
We know that many of the benchmarks already have RVV support (compare BPI-F3 results between versions) and three are still missing RVV support.
I think the optimized score would be in the 500s, but that's still a lot lower than Pi5.
Well, today it is only Ubuntu 25.10 and newer that require RVA23. Almost everything else will run on plain old RV64GC which this board handles no problem.
But you are correct that once RVA23 chips begin to appear, everybody will move to it quite quickly.
RVA23 provides essentially the same feature-set as ARM64 or x86-64v4 including both virtualization and vector capabilities. In other words, RVA23 is the first RISC-V profile to match what modern applications and workflows require.
The good news is that I expect this to remain the minimum profile for quite a long time. Even once RVA30 and future profiles appear, there may not be much pressure for things like Linux distributions to drop support for RVA23. This is a lot like the modern x86-64 space where almost all Linux distributions work just fine on x86-64 v1 even though there are now v2, v3, and v4 available as well. You can run the latest edition of Arch Linux on hardware from 2005. It is hard to predict the future but it would not surprise me if Ubuntu 30.04 LTS ran just fine on RISC-V hardware released later this year.
But ya, anything before RVA23, like the RVA22 Titan we are discussing here, will be stuck forever on older distros or custom builds (like Ubuntu 25.04).
I'm not even sure it's just instruction support that's the problem with the RV2. I bought one since I thought it would be cool to write a bare metal os for it (especially after I found the AI results to be so bad.) But the lack of documentation has been making it very hard to get anything actually up and running. The best I've got is compiling their custom u-boot and linux repos, and even those come with some problems.
I have been disappointed with Orange Pi hardware, I am not surprised.
Seldom does an SBC vendor want to actually support their products. You get the distro they made at launch, that is it. They do no updates or support. They just want to sell an overpriced chipset with a fucked and unwieldy boot sequence.
Same thing with all the Android devices. Pick a version of Android that you like because that's what you'll have on it forever.
I find it worrying that this was upvoted so much so quickly, and HN users are apparently unable to spot the glaring red flags about this article.
1. Let's start with where the post was published. Check what kind of content this blog publishes - huge volumes of random low-effort AI-boosting posts with AI-generated images. This isn't a blog about history or linguistics.
2. The author is anonymous.
3. The contents of the post itself: it's just raw AI output. There's no expert commentary. It just mentions that unnamed experts were unable to do the job.
This isn't to say that LLMs aren't useful for science; on the contrary. See for example Terence Tao's blog. Notice how different his work is from whatever this post is.
I'm especially suspicious of the handwriting analysis. It seems like the kind of thing a vLLM would be pretty bad at doing and very good at convincingly faking for non-experts.
Gemini 3 Pro, eg, fails very badly at reading the Braille in this image, confusing the English language text for the actual Braille. When you give it just the Braille, it still fails and confidently hallucinates a transcription badly enough that you don't even have to know Braille (I don't!) to see it's wrong.
That was said about reddit some years ago and now reddit is clearly riddled with astroturfing and other manipulations. We don't know how big the problem on hn already is and how bad it will get. But it would be naive to think, that it doesn't happen here.
True. Sometimes weird links with very few upvotes magically end up in the top 10. But the comments usually bring them back to earth!
The most real benefit of HN vs Reddit is commenters who are actually knowledgeable in that field, who leave a comment or vote up an actually useful comment.
Right, the website lists the accusations with links, but the links seem unrelated to the accusations.
For example, I'd expect "criticizing expert medical and scientific consensus on healthcare for our minors" to link to some kind of article describing what Jesse Singal said about this topic and why it's incorrect, but instead it links to a general page about "healthcare providers serving gender diverse youth" that doesn't even mention anything about the accused person or their writings.
But to my eyes, this PR does look like spam. It has no description, its title and commit messages are meaningless. Changing random auxiliary files is also a common sign of PR spam. This PR really looks no different from other spam PRs that popular GH repos have to deal with all the time.
This is not the right way to contribute to a project. If I were the maintainer, I wouldn't engage with it either, just like I don't reply to spam emails.
Your spam detector is broken. It was opened by an account that's clearly human with more than 10 years of history. It was closed by the author themselves 2 hours after they opened it. It's got WIP commits that were clearly written by a human thinking through the process.
What about this reads as spam to you? They just forgot to fill the description portion of the PR
I think this is the wrong direction. We need better journalism, not better summarizing aggregators.
Summaries are no substitute for real articles, even if they're generated by hand (and these apparently are not). Summaries are bound to strip the information of context, important details and analysis. There's also no accountability for the contents.
Sure, there are links to the actual articles, but let's not kid ourselves that most people are going to read them. Why would they need a summarizing service otherwise? Especially if there are 20 sources of varying quality.
There are no "lifehacks" to getting informed. I'll be harsh: this service strikes me as informationally illiterate person's idea of what getting informed is like.
Also, they talk about "echo chambers" and "full spectrum of global perspectives". Representing all perspectives sounds great in theory, but how far should it go?
Should all politicians' remarks be reproduced verbatim with absolutely no commentary, no fact-checking and no context? Should an article about an airplane crossing the Pacific include "some experts believe that this is impossible because Earth is flat?"
Excessive bias in media is definitely a problem, but I don't think that completely unbiased media can exist while still being useful. In my expierence, people looking for it either haven't thought about it deeply enough, or they just want information that doesn't make their side look bad.
> Representing all perspectives sounds great in theory
A bigger bias problem by far is bias by omission, so including all stories whether they meet the presenter's political agenda or not would be a great start.
Just printing whatever lies a politician or CEO says without any context or pushback is not a useful “news” source. You could just follow them on social media if you are into that sort of thing.
Interviews have been a core part of serious journalism for much longer than you or me have been alive. If you want to be informed on a deeper level, you have to read or listen to interviews.
World leaders will always lie or side-step the truth in lesser or bigger degrees, because they represent a people or an organizations and committed fully to the interest of those. Part of being mature as a listener or reader is understanding that, and still get the useful information you need. Every person you meet in life will first and foremost speak from their own interest and agenda.
Then these interviews are complemented by regular reporting and interviews with people from the opposing viewpoint, if you so wish.
> We need better journalism, not better summarizing aggregators.
I agree, but how do you envision that happening? Journalism died a long time ago, arguably around the birth of the 24-hour news cycle, and it was further buried by social media. A niche tech company can only provide a better way to consume what's out there, not solve such large societal problems.
> There are no "lifehacks" to getting informed.
I don't think their intent is to change how people are informed. What this aims to do is replace endless doomscrolling on sites that are incentivized to rob us of our attention and data, with spending a few minutes a day to get a sense of general events around the world. If something piques your interest, you can visit the linked sources, or research the event elsewhere. But as a way of getting a quick general overview of what's going on, I think it's great.
We're seeing success with giving journalists better tools to create engaging journalism (which HN hates :). Many outlets are now seeing that they have to once more prove their value, and there exists some really great subscription-only media here in the Nordics and France.
That's precisely what Axios does, and they make money from this (and they don't list their sources). So I can see Kagi pursuing this.
FWIW, I agree with you.
I used to be a news junkie. I've always thought of writing the lessons I learned, but one of them was "If you're a casual news reader, you are likely more misinformed than the one who doesn't read any news." One either should abstain or go all in.
I guess I'd amend it to put people who only glance at headlines to be even more misinformed. It was not at all unusual for me to read articles where the content just plain disagreed with the headline!
This article isn't about that newspaper. It's about the "Pravda network", a group of fake news websites, that according to the report linked in the article[1] produced "20,273 articles per 48 hours, or more than 3.6 million articles per year".
Clearly there's no need for "PhD in mental gymnastics".
The closest thing is probably Orange Pi RV2, but it has an outdated SoC with no RVA23 support, meaning some Linux distros won't even run on it. Its performance is also much poorer than of the RPi5.
reply