> I saw OP threw in technical points where the hobby machine is not like a production HPC box - after issuing a dismissal of the work entirely. Which would mak

> I saw OP threw in technical points where the hobby machine is not like a production HPC box - after issuing a dismissal of the work entirely. Which would make it a non-shallow dismissal, as it provided a number of specific discussion points, which are, in fact, being discussed. The guidelines don't, after all, discourage dismissal (even dismissal in entirety), only shallow dismissal. > HN does best when it gives a hobbyist a good faith appraisal of his/her work. This strikes me as a very subject assertion, all around. It's a matter of opinion on how HN does best, and it's a matter of opinion what constitutes a good faith appraisal, especially as it relates to a hobby. That said, I might agree for a "Show HN" post, but not for a repost of something 4 years old, with the arguably clickbaity (and patently, unarguably controversial) unqualified term "supercomputers" in the title. > A hobbyist is of course not going to have the resources to do HPC at home - usually. If not, I'm left to wonder, what's the point? Where is the performance "high" or the computing "super"? I could somewhat wrap my brain around a hobbyist building a very small (in node count) HPC cluster as a testbed. I could also understand if the goal were something like cost-performance efficiency improvement (for purchase and/or operating cost). Is that what's going on here? I didn't get that from the article, and only one comment claimed the architecture is "novel" without specifying in what way. I didn't even see anything to suggest scalability/modularity that's easier than "real" HPC, but that could be because I missed it among the emphasis on handmade construction.