Telling people who want to have that participation and discussion to “RTFM” is not a good response.

Often you’ll come across the authors on these posts that can shed direct, 1st person evidence, of what we’re talking about.

So please, when someone asks “what is that?” Don’t respond with “RTFM”.

I won't argue, but there is a middle ground between articles consisting of pure JAFAs and this:

> accommodate readers who won’t even type four letters into a search bar

I think it helps if acronyms are expanded at least once or in a footnote so that the potential new reader can follow along and does not need to guess what ACMV^ means.

^: Awesome Combobulating Method by VTimofeenko, patent pending.

However, MLIR is a highly-specialized term. The problem with failing to define a term like that is that I don't know up front if I'm the target audience for the article. I had to Google it, and when I did that, all I found at first were yet more articles that failed to define it.

Wikipedia gets the job done, but these days, Wikipedia is often a long way down the Google search results list. I think they downranked it when they started force-feeding AI answers (which also didn't help).

Just say to the AI, "Explain THIS".

Also HN: "Not like that"

Geohot has been working on this for about a year, and every roadblock he's encountered he has had to damn near pester Lisa Su about getting drivers fixed. If you want the CUDA replacement that would work on AMD, you need to wait on AMD. If there is a bug in the AMD microcode, you are effectively "stopped by AMD".