Concerning Thunderbolt 3: USB4 is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol [1].
Concerning Thunderbolt 4:
"In July 2020 Intel announced Thunderbolt 4 as an implementation of USB4 40 Gbit/s with additional requirements, such as mandatory backward compatibility to Thunderbolt 3 and requirement for smaller notebooks to support being charged over Thunderbolt 4 ports.[14] Publications such as AnandTech described Thunderbolt 4 as "superset of TB3 and USB4" and "able to accept TB4, TB3, USB4, and USB 3/2/1 connections"." [2]
Concerning Thunderbolt 5: Intel considers Thunderbolt 5 as an implementation of USB4 Version 2.0. [3]
From a protocol/bandwidth level, it’s essentially the same though. Thunderbolt 5 has some more guarantees for power and display, but the data rate of the two is the same.
To be fair: You should refer to these as Type-C cables, as they carry things that are not USB protocol.
The sole exception should be made for "charge only" cables, which can, and should, be referred to as "wired for USB 2.0". These cables "shouldn't" exist, but I also don't want to buy a $30 cable just to charge my phone.
Thunderbolt 5 is basically just PCI Express, power delivery, and DisplayPort over the same cable, which for reasons passing understanding is terminated with a USB-C connector.
I think most of those cables will also support USB the protocol.
That's what I've been heads down, HUNGRY, working on, looking for investors and founding engineers pst: https://heymanniceidea.com (disclaimer: I am not associated with heymanniceidea.com)
HN is owned by a startup accelerator and venture capital firm. They do growth hacking on the front page. And you probably know that since your throwaway account is several years old.
LM Arena is a particularly bad comparison site too. Prompts that they use are usually incredibly generic like "A digital render of a sleek, futuristic motorcycle racing through a neon-lit cityscape."
I actually built GenAI Showdown a while back because I was deeply unsatisfied with LM Arena and other purported comparison tables which either (A) relied solely on visual fidelity (which is a far less interesting benchmark than adherence, IMHO) and/or (B) relied on extremely simplistic and banal prompts.
ELIZA is better, because this doesn't seem to generate anything coherent. You can try the original ELIZA with DOCTOR script here: https://anthay.github.io/eliza.html
Jopsph Weizenbaum's ELIZA was rule-based and ran on even slower (1960s) hardware, but because it relied on simple pattern matching instead of neural nets, it would easily have been more responsive (the Emacs editor/operating system has an implementation included, start it with: M-x doctor RETURN).
ELIZA was not written in assembler, but (different versions) in COMIT, FORTRAN and LISP.
There's a lot of people here with esoteric knowledge of lasers, because they're generally incredible devices (along with masers). Someone should be able to comment.
I wish we had a large laser manufacturing ability in the West. I would say 95% of lasers of all kinds are manufactured in China.
reply