Unlurker|Replay|About
First time since 1988, the U.S. is not officially commemorating World AIDS Day (npr.org)
•
It's been 37 years. Since then many treatments for the disease have been discovered. We no longer commemorate the bubonic plague and we never commemorated lime disease. It makes sense that at some point we would stop commemorating other diseases.
•
Are we great yet?
•
I guess that depends on your point of view. From the current administrations POV, I'm sure they think things are indeed great (again).
•
Things are going great for them. That's for sure.
The Rise of AI Denialism (bigthink.com)
•
Perhaps https://unanimous.ai/ (where Rosenberg is CEO) has funding problems if such articles are required. Blaming the user for not understanding the magnificent technology is the latest fad. The cranky Google AI also accuses you of being "frustrated" and "anxious" if you do not like its output. Investors are beginning to notice.
•
Its behavior is becoming more human? No wonder investors are nervous.
•
Another salesperson trying to jump on a departing bandwagon, without having an interesting product and not providing any valuable insights. > grief > denial Yeah, and he's in the denial phase
Gary Tan claims Zoho will be out of business due to vibe coding (twitter.com)
•
He said `would be first`; I 100% agree. If vibe coding was going to take over the world, then Zoho going out of business is a very good leading indicator. As soon as that happens, I will invest heavily; till then it is safe to ignore it.
•
Pichai should be fearing for his position after all the misallocation of capital and the low quality of Google "AI". Of course he endorses slop coding (Pichai's endorsement is criticized by the Zoho founder for those who do not click through to X). Zoho will now be a very interesting company for the vast majority of people who hate "AI". I'll have to check it out.
•
Most probably all VCs will go out of business as the cost of creating software companies approaches zero. The need to create an army of software developers is no longer needed.
•
Let's say I'm a manufacturer of widgets, and instead of buying an off-the-shelf CRM I decide to have the resident IT whiz on the team vibe-code a custom solution for our needs. Now I'm a manufacturer of widgets AND a CRM SaaS shop, responsible for software maintenance/deployment/reliability/feature roadmap/bug remediation. I guess the idea is that AI agents will take care of all of those things too - to which I guess my perspective is "good luck! I hope that works out."
•
It's 'Garry' and besides that guy gets too much airtime already.
•
[delayed]
•
Well, then I claim that it will be the companies themselves that try to replace Zoho (or any other CRM for that matter) with a vibe-coded replacement, the ones going out of business. As someone said once: focus on what makes your beer taste better.
•
Vibe coding can only affect companies that depend on slow-coding.
•
> competed away by people building their own custom software built by people using @Replit @emergentlabs and @Taskade Why do you need 3 platforms to vibe code a solution? Are each one of them not good enough?
•
I bet all are Y Combinator companies.
•
Obviously not? Accounting software has to work or the IRS (or your local equivalent) will come after you. Zoho "just works".
•
I kinda hope so. When I started my career companies and orgs had in-house developers to make custom software for the org. The developers understood the business and were part of the culture. Then the labor market got tight, developers left for higher paying jobs, managers became afraid of going custom because they would lose the developers, so they starting buying overpriced SAAS products and contractors. If the job market is flush again with capable devs armed with AI, maybe we can go back to in-house developers again.
•
> Why pay $30/seat/month for over bundled SaaS when soon even nontech ops ppl can vibe-code a custom solution in a weekend? I don't get his suggestion. I'm paying Zoho for email hosting. What am I even supposed to vibe-code successfully for me to drop Zoho? There's no shortage of open-source IMAP/SMTP servers, in fact Zoho is probably using them too. Sure I can spin one myself, but I'm paying for Zoho for the *service*, not the software.
•
I used to run my own smtp server, but it's far easier to point my MX records and let someone else do it. If zoho go bust I'm sure another company will replace them.
•
Considering how much money they invested in countless AI VS Code forks and other vibe coding platforms, he needs to hype up the market.
•
He will be right at some point. The question is when. I'm already vibe coding complex things like GUIs, my desktop environment (NixOS), and last week a Wayland layer shell client that would have taken me quite a lot of work if I had to do them myself from scratch from docs, and I have 20 years of software experience. The things I spend time building and polishing today with my own time are just next year's vibe-coded minutia. Some people are going to have a very hard time swallowing this pill, though.
•
Where am I going to host my mail server? And handle the backups? Surely AWS's overpriced lockin stuff will be "vide coded" away far faster than smaller companies
•
Yeah, likewise. I didn't type this comment. I created my own Alexa-style Voice to text typist, using whisper and Rust. I've never typed a line of Rust in my life. making projects that would have taken months before. I'll do them in an evening, using my iPhone. This morning alone I've created a Auto Green Screen Program for my webcam. so I can put my own effects on it, like in Teams.
•
Will they lose a small customer or two to custom vibe coded solutions, yes. Will they be "competed away" due to vibe coding, definitely not. You have to remember that no one gets fired for selecting an established software provider. Zoho is a 'safe' pick for SMBs because you know it will work compared to some custom CRM that Bill from accounting vibe coded in an afternoon.
•
Why would a small customer bother with building their own Zoho solution even? I mean, if an SMB did that, I'd call them morons. Zoho has its flaws, but for small businesses, Zoho is a godsend. If an SMB doesn't want to pay for Zoho, I'd seriously ask them to recheck if they're making any money whatsoever. Moreover Zoho is one of the few platforms out there that's really intuitive. Do this, do this and that, and you're good to go. Compared to setting up something like Zendesk or Freshdesk or Xero or QuickBooks , etc.
I feel like I've seen his name a few times but I don't know much about him at all but I can tell you from that 1 tweet he has no clue what he is talking about. Bozo bit flipped. I don't use Zoho but I've played with it before, the thought that you can vibe code up something like that (which is reliable) is laughable. From the title I thought they were saying that /using/ vibe coding at Zoho would lead to them going out of business (something much more plausible).
•
He runs Y combinator. This is his site!
•
So what? PG made this, Sam Altman futzed around with it and Tan is at best a caretaker. Note Tan is ex Palantir and as such good buddies with Thiel and a lot of other despicables. That they're wealthy is no reason to look up to them.
•
Aha. Explains a lot.
•
And I'm here to clown on him and his kind.
•
Really everyone thinks of it as Paul Graham (and dang's I suppose...) site I do wonder if the CEO of YC even comes on here much? I assume PG does not come on here much outside of viewing threads here and there.
•
This. If I think about who's "site" HN is then PG or Dang are front of mind. I know Dang is /just/ a mod but he is who is visible. I've never once cared who actually ran YC, I didn't care when Sam Altman ran it and I don't care about Gary Tan either, they are 100% immaterial to the discussions that happen on this site IMHO.
•
Amazing how someone so clueless can be in a such an influential position.
•
He is not clueless. He is just pushing a batshit crazy narrative because they are invested in tons of vibe coding startups.
•
I stand by what I said. To think Zoho or companies like it will be out of business due to vibe coding tools is absurd given what's currently available. I guess this is just yet another YC ceo/whatever that I care little for (See also: Sam Altman).
"NFTs show relatively small groups of tens of thousands of people can work together collectively for a common good" - Garry Tan, 23 March 2022 https://x.com/garrytan/status/1506769562468958210 "If you own an NFT..." you are an innovator among innovators. - Garry Tan, 30 September 2021 [quote tweet] https://x.com/garrytan/status/1443460589049704450 Web3 vs Earlier incarnations technology adoption curve [image tweet] https://x.com/garrytan/status/1521530531568963584 "airdrops going mainstream could truly upend some % of the centralized ad-based economy of Web2" - Garry Tan, 25 Dec 2021 https://x.com/garrytan/status/1474826162408808448
•
Was it really just 4 years ago that NFTs were "the next big thing"? The tweets don't age well in hindsight but sometimes there are technologies which feel like they might break through but never do. Having been bullish on the concept of NFTs doesn't make a strong argument for or against having good intuition of breakthrough innovation.
•
When I see this kind of comment, I read it as a disclosure that he invested in crypto and NFTs
•
One of the things us VCs do is 1. Advertise our thesis by building a narrative 2. Evangelize our portfolio By posting a narrative comparing Zoho (who btw does offer an Agents marketplace for domain-specific agents [0]) against a vibe coded product, Garry is able to both craft a narrative that helps support YC's portfolio as well as bring a couple of people to start thinking about Vibecoding. It also acts as an indirect attack against G-Suite without calling out a massive organization like Alphabet which YC needs to coexist with. All businesses do this, and knowing Zoho, they will probably leverage this as well as a way to market data sovereigninty and "make in India" by raising the specter of the big bad American capitalist trying to undermine a bootstrapped Indian company. [0] - https://www.zoho.com/zia/agents/
A series of vignettes from my childhood and early career (jasonscheirer.com)
•
The reports about our death were greatly exaggerated .
•
The title is “The Death of Software Engineering as a Profession", why was this changed? Not really fair to the author.
•
Forgive me but a lot of the examples seem like strawman. > The dream of “multimedia” became commonplace and everyone just accepted it as normal. I’m not aware of any industries that collapsed dramatically due to multimedia. But "multimedia" was never purported to be something that would lead to collapse of any segment of the industry, much less industries. If anything, the multimedia hype was purported to increase IT work which it did for some years. > In 2000 a coworker took me aside and showed me his brand-new copy of IntelliJ IDE. “It’s over for us,” he said, “this thing makes it so programmers aren’t strictly necessary, like one person can operate this tool and they can lay the rest of us off.” I've a hard time believing this. Literally nobody I've met was ever mistaken that IntelliJ would mean the doom of software engineering work. It's a great IDE and all IDE including IntelliJ required engineers to write code with them. Nobody was foolish enough to really think one engineer or one manager or one salesperson can "operate" IntelliJ and generate all the code to meet business requirements. > And then he showed me the killer feature “that’s going to get us all out of a job:” the refactoring tools. I'll bet there was no such "coworker". No sane person would think "refactoring" could mean "magically understand business requirements and write code"? All of this sounds like strawman setup so that the author could go on to making their next point like the bit where he challenged his "coworker" and asked if refactoring tools can write new code. Don't get me wrong. The rest of the post is on money though. I just think the post would do better without these fake stories to set up strawmans only to take them down. Feels a bit forced!
Isn't this a bit revisionist? I started to become interested in programming around late 90s and I don't remember anyone floating the idea that OOP, libraries or IDEs will make programming obsolete as a profession. If anything, pre-2023 most programmers considered their job as one of the hardest ones to automate.
•
> I started to become interested in programming around late 90s and I don't remember anyone floating the idea that OOP, libraries or IDEs will make programming obsolete as a profession. The version of this hype that I remember from circa 2004 was UML[1] was going to make most programming automated. You'd have an architect that would draw out your problem's architecture in a GUI[2], press a button to automate all the code to build that architecture, and have a programmer fill in a couple dozen lines of business logic. Boom, program done by two or three people in a couple weeks, let's all go home. It uh, didn't work out that way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UML [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Component-based-Software-Engineering-example2.png
Yeah, I can confirm, before LLMs I definitely thought coding would be the last thing to go.
•
> before LLMs I definitely thought coding would be the last thing to go. While LLMs do still struggle to produce high quality code as a function of prompt quality and available training data, many human software developers are surprised at the speed at which LLMs (software) can generate software. I wonder to what extent this surprise is because people tend to think very deeply when writing software and assume thinking and "reasoning" are what produce quality software. What if the experience of "thinking" and "reasoning" are epiphenomena of the physical statistical models present in the connections of our brains? This is an unsolved and ancient philosophical (essentially the problem of duality) of whether consciousness and free will affect the physical world. If we live in a materialist universe where matter and the laws of physics are unaffected by consciousness then "thinking", "reasoning", and "free will" are purely subjective. In such a view, subjective experience attends material changes in the world but does not affect the material world. Software developers surprised by the capabilities of software (LLMs) to write software might not be so surprised if they understood consciousness as an epiphenomenon of materiality. Just as words do not cause diaphragms to compress lungs to move air past vocal cords and propagate air vibrations, perhaps the thoughts that attend action (including the production of words) are not the motive force of those actions.
Incredible comment. I live on biz side of insurance but use tech/automation skills all the time. My industry should have solved so many problems so many years ago. But it didn't because of exactly what you said: "how lazy people are about learning and adopting them"
•
Except in other industries it is usually the lazier people who got the power to fix the things as they were like 30 years ago. While in IT they got washed out quickly.
The outsourcing is the only real threat in your list. In the past, we have eliminated jobs in the primary (eg farming) and secondy (eg manufacturing) industries through automation and outsourcing with the goal of moving workers into higher level industries, including tertiary industries (eg software). If we are outsourcing tertiary industry jobs as well, what does that leave us? The US outsources something like 300k jobs annually, with over half of these being IT jobs. Adding 10k IT jobs per month could change the employment numbers and economic outlook we've been seeing lately. It seems like we're in a race to the bottom. I do think AI will make things worse, economically at least, with the reduction in jobs. But this could be offset by policies promoting on-shore employment.
•
It leaves us nothing :)
Addressing the adding situation (xania.org)
•
What's the current best resources to learn assembly? So that I can understand output of simple functions. I don't want to learn to write it properly, I just want to be able to understand on what's happening.
LEA is the equivalent of & in C. It gives you the address of something. Fun question: what does the last line of this do? MOV BP,12 LEA AX,[BP] MOV BX,34 LEA AX,BX
•
I think OP was just making a comment on the asymmetry of the syntax. Brackets [] are usually used to dereference. Why is this written lea eax, [rdi + rsi] instead of just lea eax, rdi + rsi ?
He's actually wrong on the ABI requiring the top bits to be 0. It only requires that the bottom 32 bits match the parameter, but the top bits of a 32-bit parameter passed in a 64-bit register can be anything (at least on Linux). You can see that in this godbolt example: https://godbolt.org/z/M1ze74Gh6 The reason the code in his post works is because the upper 32 bits of the parameters going into an addition can't affect the low 32 bits of the result, and he's only storing the low 32 bits.
•
There is something fun about using godbolt.org to say that Matt Godbolt is wrong.
Funny to see a comment on HN raising this exact point, when just ~2 hours ago I was writing inline asm that used `lea` precisely to preserve the carry flag before a jump table! :)
•
I'm curious, what are you working on that requires writing inline assembly?
•
I'm not them but whenever I've used it it's been for arch specific features like adding a debug breakpoint, synchronization, using system registers, etc. Never for performance. If I wanted to hand optimise code I'd be more likely to use SIMD intrinsics, play with C until the compiler does the right thing, or write the entire function in a separate asm file for better highlighting and easier handing of state at ABI boundary rather than mid-function like the carry flags mentioned above.
That depends on sizeof(*arr) no?
•
Nope, a[b] is equivalent to *(a + b) regardless of a and b.
•
Given that, why don't we use just `*(a + b)` everywhere? Wouldn't that be more verbose and less confusing? (genuinely asking)
Advent of Compiler Optimisations 2025 (xania.org)
What's your reason for -O2 over -O3?
•
You have to profile for your specific use case. Some programs run slower under O3 because it inlines/unrolls more aggressively, increasing code size (which can be cache-unfriendly).
•
Historically, -O3 has been a bit less stable (producing incorrect code) and more experimental (doesn't always make things faster). Flags from -O3 often flow down into -O2 as they are proven generally beneficial. That said, I don't think -O3 has the problems it once did.
•
Thanks
Comparing AWS Lambda ARM64 vs. x86_64 Performance Across Runtimes in Late 2025 (chrisebert.net)
•
Intel execs after reading this: FAST, more stock buybacks and executive bonuses to mitigate this!!!
I would not be surprised that Rust be faster than Python, but looking at the code of his Benchmarks, I'm not sure that it really means anything. For example, the "light" test will do calls to "dynamodb". Maybe you benchmark python, or you benchmark the aws sdk implementation with different versions of python, or just you benchmark average dynamodb latencies at different times of the day, ... And, at least for Python, his cpu and memory test code looks like to be especially specific. For example, if you use "sha256" or any other hashlib, you will not really benchmark python but the C implementation of the hashlib, that might depend on the crypto or gcc libraries or optimization that was used by AWS to build the python binaries.
•
Yeah, having a native binary be only 2x faster than CPython, or CPython showing 4x (!!) advantage vs. V8 seems really suspicious. This benchmark suite is probably good for looking at CPU architecture deltas on identical source code (which seems to be what it was good for), but trying to intuit language/runtime behavior from it seems very dangerous.
One of the easiest hack to reduce your AWS bills is to migrate from x86 to arm64 CPU. Performance difference is negligible, and cost can be upto 50% lower for arm machines. This is for both RDS and general compute (EC2, ECS). Would recommend to all.
•
How is the performance difference negligible? In my experience, for the same generation of hardware, ARM64 performance is better than the AMD64 one. AFAIK ARM64 is around 20% cheaper, not sure where you got the 50%.
How Brian Eno Created Ambient 1: Music for Airports (2019) (reverbmachine.com)
•
Conny Plank was a catalyst or genius (or both). He keeps showing up when I look into some of my favorite produced music. Besides Kraftwerk, I think the Ultravox! album, "Systems of a Romance", was the next time I saw his name. And then, more and more…
•
I like this type of music when working and other things, that does not get many mentions. And they play a decent amount of Brian Eno's stuff. http://www.echoesofbluemars.org/ I think their bluemars stream is great.
I often use the general algorithm for 2/1 as my "hello world" when I'm building new generative music systems. You don't need too many ingredients to set it up, and it yields some surprisingly decent sounding results. The most recent one[0] I made was done when I was playing around with Rust, WASM, and WebAudio. (You'll need to press somewhere to start the sound) 0: https://pbat.ch/isorhythms/
•
Great sound! This Sonic Pi example really blew my mind when I first heard it. Such a rich sound out of three notes. use_synth :hollow with_fx :reverb, mix: 0.7 do live_loop :note1 do play choose([:D4,:E4]), attack: 6, release: 6 sleep 8 end live_loop :note2 do play choose([:Fs4,:G4]), attack: 4, release: 5 sleep 10 end live_loop :note3 do play choose([:A4, :Cs5]), attack: 5, release: 5 sleep 11 end end
Also a huge Eno fan here. Put together, I probably have listened to Music for Airports, Another Green World, Taking Tiger Mountain and Discreet Music more than any other artist. Maybe Philip Glass comes in at a close second. Anyways, in 2016, Tero Parviainen (@teropa) shared this really cool long-form exploration called "JavaScript Systems Music – Learning Web Audio by Recreating The Works of Steve Reich and Brian Eno" that I enjoyed tremendously (and I don't even like Javascript!) Check it out at: https://teropa.info/blog/2016/07/28/javascript-systems-music.html
•
Check out his work with Jon Hassel and if you feel like it 'Pearl'. Both are - in my opinion, of course - awesome. Though the Jon Hassel collaboration may take a while to grow on you.
•
Thanks for sharing. I've been on a path of algo music with JavaScript (I also do not enjoy JavaScript) and have mostly just guess-and-checked my way through it. I'm going to work through this as my advent of code project. Yesterday I put up a little dictionary of synth sounds that I'm building out to help me on my journey ( https://synthrecipes.org ). The goal to be able to export any particular sound in a format for different live coding environments. Sounds are defined in a JSON format like https://synthrecipes.org/recipes/acid-bass.json . I'll open source it today so other can submit sounds.
> Pauline Oliveros Yes yes yes! Finally someone who won't make fun of me for listening to Horse Singd from a Cloud. You should add Laurie Spiegel to your list, something tells me you'd enjoy.
•
"Deep Listening" by Pauline Oliveros, Stuart Dempster and Panaiotis is also excellent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U__lpPDTUS4
Rootless Pings in Rust (bou.ke)
> It turns out you can create a UDP socket with a protocol flag, which allows you to send the ping rootless This is wrong, despite the Rust library in question's naming convention. You're not creating a UDP socket. You're creating an IP (AF_INET), datagram socket (SOCK_DGRAM), using protocol ICMP (IPPROTO_ICMP). The issue is that the rust library apparently conflates datagram and UDP, when they're not the same thing. You can do the same in C, by calling socket(2) with the above arguments. It hinges on Linux allowing rootless pings from the GIDs in $ sysctl net.ipv4.ping_group_range net.ipv4.ping_group_range = 999 59999 EDIT: s/ICMP4/ICMP/g EDIT2: more spelling mistakes
•
> The issue is that the rust library apparently conflates datagram and UDP, when they're not the same thing. It comes down to these two lines (using full items paths for clarity): let socket = socket2::Socket::new(Domain::IPV4, Type::DGRAM, Some(Protocol::ICMPV4))?; let socket: std::net::UdpSocket = socket.into(); The latter is using this impl: https://docs.rs/socket2/0.6.1/socket2/struct.Socket.html#impl-From%3CSocket%3E-for-UdpSocket Basically the `socket2` crate lets you convert the fd it produces into a `UdpSocket`. It doesn't verify it really is a UDP socket first; that's up to you. If you do it blindly, you can get something with the wrong name, but it's probably harmless. (At the very least, it doesn't violate memory safety guarantees, which is what Rust code tends to be very strict about.) `UdpSocket` itself has a `From<OwnedFd>` impl that similarly doesn't check it really is a UDP socket; you could convert the `socket2::Socket` to an `OwnedFd` then that to a `UdpSocket`. https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/net/struct.UdpSocket.html#impl-From%3COwnedFd%3E-for-UdpSocket https://docs.rs/socket2/0.6.1/socket2/struct.Socket.html#impl-From%3CSocket%3E-for-OwnedFd
Could you please explain me the difference? As UDP is the "User Datagram Protocol" when I read about datagrams I always think about UDP and though it was just a different way of saying the same thing. Maybe "datagram" is supposed to be the packet itself, but you're still sending it via UDP, right?
•
When I read about animals I always think about elephants and though it was just a different way of saying the same thing.
•
As the other commenter pointed out, UDP is transport protocol, not a packet level protocol. Think of it like this: Ethernet sends data frames to a MAC address. It has a sender and a receiver address. See here for structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_frame Internet Protocols (v6 and v4) send packets via Ethernet (or WiFi or Bluetooth or anything else) from an IP address to an IP address. For structure see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_packet or if for some reason you still need the legacy version see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4#Packet_structure (aside but notice how much complexity was removed from the legacy version). Notably, IP does not have any mechanism for reliability. It is essentially writing your address and a destination address on a brick and tossing over your fence to the neighbor’s yard and asking them to pass it along. If your neighbor isn’t home your brick is not moving along. TCP and UDP send streams and datagrams respectively and use the concept of application ports. A TCP stream is what it sounds like: a continuous stream of bytes with no length or predefined stopping point. TCP takes your stream and chunks it into IP packets, the size of which is determined by the lowest Ethernet (or whatever data link protocol) data frame size. Typically this is 1500 but don’t forget to account for header sizes so useful payload size is smaller. TCP is complex because it guarantees that your stream will eventually be delivered in the exact order in which it was sent. Eventually here could mean at t = infinity. UDP simply has source and destination port numbers in its header (which follows the IP header in the data frame), and guarantees nothing: not ordering not guaranteed delivery, etc. If an IP packet is a brick with two house addresses, a UDP datagram is a brick with two house addresses and an ATTN: application X added. An address represents an computer (this is very approximate in the world where any machine can have N addresses and run M VMs or containers which themselves can have O addresses), and a port represents a specific process on that computer. ICMP does not use ports. ICMP is meant for essentially network and host telemetry so you are still sending and receiving only at an IP address level. But it has a number of message types. You can see them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICMPv6 . Note that ping and pong are just two of the types. Others are actually responsible for things like communicating what raw IP cannot. For example Packet Too Large type tells you that an IP packet you tried to send was hitting a part of its path where the datagram size did not allow it to fit and it’s used for IP MTU path discovery (you keep sending different size packets to find what is the largest that will go through). There are other protocols that run directly on top of IP (6in4 for example, or SCTP). Most are way less popular than the three mentioned above. Some use datagrams (discrete “bricks” of data), some use streams (endless “tapes” of data), which is the difference in protocol family: datagrams vs stream. You can also go a level deeper and just craft raw IP packets directly but for that you typically must be the root user since you can for example send a packet with the source port set to 22 even though you are not the ssh daemon. Since ICMP has no concept of a port, when you send a ping to a remote host and it returns a ping to you, how does your kernel know to hand the response to your process and not some other one? In the ICMP header there is an ICMP identifier (often the process PID) and when the reply comes back it has the same identifier (but with source and destination IPs swapped and type updated to echo reply). This is what the kernel uses to find the process to which it will deliver the ICMP packet. I hope this clears up some of this.
> It's not UDP socket that gets created here, but Datagram socket A datagram socket is a UDP socket, though. That's what the D stands for.
•
Not every cola is Coca-Cola, even though "Cola" stands for cola.
 Top