Hacker News

Most-read tech publications have lost over half their Google traffic since 2024

2026-03-0313:45229168growtika.com

We tracked the organic search traffic of CNET, Wired, The Verge, TechRadar, and six others from early 2024 to today. Combined, they lost 65 million monthly visits.

At their peaks, ten major tech publications pulled a combined 112 million organic visits per month from Google in the US. By January 2026, that number had fallen to 47 million. All ten sites are down, though not by equal amounts. Some lost 30%. Others lost over 90%.

TL;DR

  • 10 major tech publications lost a combined 65M monthly organic visits since their peaks. That's a 58% decline.
  • Digital Trends: 8.5M → 265K (-97%). ZDNet: 7.6M → 769K (-90%). The Verge: 5.3M → 790K (-85%).
  • Even the least affected sites are down significantly: CNET lost 47%, Tom's Guide lost 50%, Wired lost 62%.
  • NerdWallet lost 73% (25M → 6.8M) and Healthline lost 50% (111M → 56M), suggesting the pattern extends beyond tech.
  • The steepest declines started in mid-2025, coinciding with the expansion of Google's AI Overviews.

We pulled monthly US organic traffic estimates from Ahrefs for ten major English-language tech publications from February 2024 through January 2026. For each site, we identified the peak traffic month and compared it to January 2026 (the most recent complete month). All figures are Ahrefs estimates for the US market.

112M

Combined peak monthly traffic

47M

Combined traffic, January 2026

PublicationPeak TrafficPeak MonthJan 2026Decline
Digital Trends8,530,891Mar 2024264,861-97%
ZDNet7,610,480Feb 2024768,792-90%
The Verge5,322,037Feb 2024790,002-85%
HowToGeek1,974,331Feb 2024293,898-85%
TechRadar15,577,298Jul 20244,045,783-74%
Wired7,754,067Nov 20242,976,994-62%
Tom's Guide16,013,790Jul 20247,986,572-50%
CNET20,294,300Nov 202410,655,803-47%
PCMag12,667,236Jul 20257,449,728-41%
Mashable16,114,803May 202411,331,018-30%

Sorted by decline percentage. All figures are estimated US organic traffic from Ahrefs.

Key Stats

  • 65M monthly visits lost across ten publications in under two years
  • Digital Trends lost 97% of its traffic — from 8.5M to 265K monthly visits, the steepest decline in the dataset
  • Four publications combined (2.1M) get less traffic than the r/ChatGPT subreddit alone (4.68M)
  • TechRadar's loss (11.5M) exceeds the current traffic of Wired, The Verge, ZDNet, HowToGeek, and Digital Trends combined (5.1M)
  • Healthline alone lost 55M visits — more than all ten tech publications currently have combined (47M)
  • NerdWallet (NRDS) lost 73% of its organic traffic — from 25M to 6.8M monthly visits as a publicly traded company

For most of these publications, the traffic curves held through early 2025 and then dropped sharply in the second half of the year. The monthly data makes the timing visible.

Monthly organic traffic: the four steepest declines

Estimated US organic visits per month, Feb 2024 to Jan 2026. Hover for exact figures.

Mar 24May 24Jul 24Sep 24Nov 24Jan 25Mar 25May 25Jul 25Sep 25Nov 25Jan 2604.0M8.0M12.0M16.0M

  • TechRadar (-74%)
  • Digital Trends (-97%)
  • ZDNet (-90%)
  • The Verge (-85%)

Yuval Halevi

Helping SaaS companies and developer tools get cited in AI answers since before it was called "GEO." 10+ years in B2B SEO, 50+ cybersecurity and SaaS tools clients.


Read the original article

Growtika

Karma: 728
...
 @Hacker__News
@hacker._news

Comments

  • By Aboutplants 2026-03-0315:3612 reply

    If you’ve visited any of these sites recently it’s obvious that part of the issue is that you’re bombarded with pops, ads everywhere, autoplaying video, etc. It’s nauseating and a horrible user experience. If all I’m looking for is straightforward content/info then I’m naturally using the most efficient way to get that content/information and visiting a website is not the most efficient way anymore

    • By npilk 2026-03-0318:461 reply

      Infinite Jest describes a very similar (fictional) development, albeit with network TV. As viewers leave, content producers are ever-more desperate to monetize remaining traffic, which worsens the experience and drives more viewers away, creating even more desperation to monetize... a vicious cycle.

      • By ProllyInfamous 2026-03-051:46

        Samizdat, it's her voice, that lady on the radio...

        Having read &/or seen both, I would think modern advertising is closer to They Live.

    • By wildrhythms 2026-03-0316:063 reply

      These news sites run ads that are borderline gore, disturbing images promoting snake oil weight loss or skin care treatments, and wonder why nobody wants to click into their site.

      • By ronsor 2026-03-0316:292 reply

        But I love internet chum! Don't forget "new law thing"; that's an important category.

      • By tencentshill 2026-03-0319:411 reply

        That's bottom of the barrel advertisers. You're being punished because you likely don't allow them to track you.

        • By zeta0134 2026-03-0319:43

          That the news sites allow bottom of the barrel advertisers on their site primarily reflects negatively on the news site, for not curating their partnerships. They decided to become a tabloid, and should lose an according amount of respect.

      • By visarga 2026-03-0319:43

        > These news sites run ads that are borderline gore, disturbing images promoting snake oil weight loss or skin care treatments

        And that doesn't raise an eye brow, but well worded AI articles based on sources is described as slop

    • By afavour 2026-03-0317:301 reply

      It's a downward spiral. As views start to decline there's more pressure to make money from the views that remain.

      • By vkou 2026-03-0319:111 reply

        If views increased, there'd also be more pressure to make more money from them.

        The direction of views is irrelevant. What's relevant is the forward passage of time. As t -> infinity, shitty monetization -> infinity.

        • By josephg 2026-03-042:421 reply

          It’s not inevitable. It’s just a specific form of leadership failure that comes from grabby short term business people being in charge of everything.

          As a counter example, the Economist or the NY Times don’t feel anywhere near this bad. They make you pay. But subscribers get a much nicer product in return.

          • By intended 2026-03-049:441 reply

            The NYT is afloat because of its games.

            The Economist is the economist, and can ask for a higher subscription price given its target audience.

            AI summaries are reducing visits to Wikipedia, which shall drive down donations.

            Creating quality information for the average citizen is not a sustainable enterprise today.

            • By josephg 2026-03-0412:14

              > Creating quality information for the average citizen is not a sustainable enterprise today.

              It used to be. People used to subscribe to the newspaper.

              Unfortunately, the advertising model convinced a generation that they don’t need to pay for journalism or really any information online. Journalism is just as expensive as it’s ever been. But news is only written if someone is willing to pay journalists and editors.

    • By jmbwell 2026-03-0320:16

      Yes, and this has been the case for years. Cnet, ZDnet, PCmag have been user-hostile since long before AI summaries. Pop-ups, “before you go,” back jacking, all the worst.

      The Verge is a surprise because it is relatively new and was relatively free of this crap for a long time.

      They’re all just empty brands now. They totally caved to advertisers, and now only advertisers care about them.

      I dare say AI’s popularity is a symptom of all this more than a cause.

    • By tracerbulletx 2026-03-040:25

      My tech tutorials blog never had any ads, still doesnt. Still lost more than half the traffic. That's not the reason, that's an excuse and a distraction from the topic that AI captures everyone's IP and removes a lot of their economic incentive to create it.

    • By hypeatei 2026-03-0316:123 reply

      Weren't those ads always there, though? The most obvious change is that a little AI popup appears on Google search providing a brief (even if hallucinated) overview of what the user queried.

      Unrelated, but I wouldn't expect this take on HN where I assumed everyone knew what an ad-blocker was.

      • By Aboutplants 2026-03-0316:261 reply

        Yes the ads were always there but that was the most efficient way to get the content/information. That has changed and even with ad blockers, websites are no longer the most efficient way to get to that content/infomation. That is what has changed

        • By hypeatei 2026-03-0316:281 reply

          Okay, I see what point you were trying to make. I misinterpreted your comment as saying LLMs weren't the catalyst but instead the ads were.

          • By glenstein 2026-03-0317:081 reply

            I also read it that way. I guess the synthesis/charitable interpretation is that the negative ad experience meant it was ripe for disruption should an alternative come along.

            But it raises a potential counterpoint: are there sites with non-terrible user experiences that are staying stable?

      • By structural 2026-03-0317:352 reply

        Mobile users (or other locked down devices where adblockers are forbidden) are still a decent chunk of traffic. It's much easier to just read the overview and not click through to the ad infestation, or even use a chatbot of choice as the search engine instead of going to Google, because "websites is how you get spammed with ads".

        • By pocksuppet 2026-03-0317:452 reply

          > Mobile users (or other locked down devices where adblockers are forbidden)

          Just say Apple. They're still allowed on Android, although I don't think you can get them from the Play Store.

          • By mikestew 2026-03-0322:011 reply

            They didn’t “just say Apple” because it wouldn’t be true. What gives you the impression ad blockers don’t work on Apple mobile devices?

            • By SR2Z 2026-03-0323:31

              The part where you are forbidden from using a web browser that isn't Safari (Chrome + FF use Safari under the hood) without jailbreaking the phone?

              On my Android phone, I installed Firefox. It synced my extensions and installed uBlock automatically. That was it.

              The last time I tried on iOS, I gave up. The adblockers I found didn't really work, they were painful to install, and the platform is so locked down that I couldn't figure out other options.

          • By vineyardmike 2026-03-0318:25

            Not allowed on my work computer. Which I do use the internet on.

            Also you can put ad block on Apple devices.

        • By politelemon 2026-03-0318:411 reply

          Ublock origin is a Firefox extension that works on mobile. You don't need a dedicated app for blocking adverts.

          • By pousada 2026-03-0318:581 reply

            Not on iOS, there Firefox is actually Safari under the hood and you can’t use extensions… Haven’t found a good solution yet (other than avoiding websites with ads)

            • By sgtaylor5 2026-03-0322:30

              Wipr2; paid for Safari but it works on all Apple devices with that one payment.

      • By vineyardmike 2026-03-0318:282 reply

        I don’t use ad block.

        I find that when it messes with the layout or formatting of a website it’s really annoying, and I consider the volume and type of ads an important signal for a website’s trustworthiness.

        Oh and plenty of devices don’t have easy access to ad block, like my work computer.

        • By pousada 2026-03-0318:57

          I use reader mode 90% of the time, I’m really not interested in fancy layout or formatting for a website. I just want the text readable and looking exactly the same way for every website. Designers probably hate users like me.

        • By JoshTriplett 2026-03-0320:22

          > and I consider the volume and type of ads an important signal for a website’s trustworthiness

          You can get the former from the number showing up in the uBlock Origin icon.

    • By ilamont 2026-03-041:17

      I used to work as a technology journalist. A guy from the business side always used to say, “there’s no way we are leaving money on the table“ as justification for putting ad modules, video players, lead generation forms and other junk around our articles. We had no say in the matter.

      Someone from the financial times did a test about the impact of this garbage on read times and brand loyalty. This was maybe 15 years ago. Of course the more ads shoehorned onto the page, the worse the metrics were.

    • By estsauver 2026-03-0321:41

      I have a recurring problem where I can't even read one of my favorite recipe websites (seriouseats.com) from my phone because the series of popups completely blocks the page, and can't be dismissed.

      But if I ask Claude or Gemini for a nice version of the recipe, it works perfectly. I think there's a lot of own goals out there.

    • By unglaublich 2026-03-0319:125 reply

      Is anyone here actually browsing the internet without ad-blockers?

      As soon as I accidentally turn them off I am disgusted by the consumerist, snake-oil, sexist, shit-storm that's advertisement.

      • By mrweasel 2026-03-0320:13

        Technically I run a tracking blocker, it just happens to block 90+% of all ads because they want to track me.

        I don't understand why ads aren't targeted towards the content of the page, rather than me as a person, that seems to be more correct in the majority of the cases.

        I did accidentally try to play a YouTube video without signing into my premium account. That platforms is completely impossible to watch without premium or an ad blocker. YouTube managers should be forced to watch a few hours of content with ads enabled.

      • By AngryData 2026-03-042:42

        Here? Probably not many. But in general? Yes, the vast majority of people do not even after being told about it, they are conditioned to accept ads because they are not optional on most any other device (minus techie hacks like pihole and such that understandable most people don't know how to do or understand).

      • By cyberax 2026-03-0320:491 reply

        I run adblock, but it's been not very effective lately. Sites either work around it, or just outright refuse to work.

        • By schubidubiduba 2026-03-047:251 reply

          Are you using a chromium-based browser? Google crippled adblockers on those. I essentially never see ads on firefox

          • By cyberax 2026-03-0418:53

            Nope, I'm on FireFox.

            I tried NoScript, but it breaks way too many sites.

      • By apparent 2026-03-0322:01

        I use adblockers everywhere. I still see some ads, but never sexist ones. What are you seeing?

      • By shawn_w 2026-03-0319:501 reply

        The average viewer probably doesn't know ad blockers exist.

    • By ugh123 2026-03-0319:461 reply

      Add to that cookie accept popups and the www has really turned to junk lately

      • By rayiner 2026-03-042:15

        The WWW has been trending towards junk since the early 2000s. HN is still the pinnacle of web design.

    • By dehrmann 2026-03-0316:262 reply

      Every time I visit the FT, the experience is reasonable enough.

      • By dredmorbius 2026-03-0322:45

        FT is (largely) subscriber-supported, AFAIU.

        Though I don't know their revenue breakdown.

        Somewhat famously, the similar (though unrelated) Economist relies on three revenue legs: subscriptions, advertising, and bespoke consulting through the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), roughly evenly distributed. The fact that these have different economic-cycle behaviours also helps stabilise the newspaper's income.

      • By apparent 2026-03-0322:02

        This article is about tech publications. I think of the FT as a financial/general news publication. Do others read them for their tech coverage?

    • By camillomiller 2026-03-0316:05

      So, Google promotes the enshittification you decry by monopolizing the way you make money on the internet. Then also Google cripples everyone’s ad-dependent business by sucking out the info these websites provide and have paid people to research and publish. Nonetheless, Google good, websites bad.

  • By eggbrain 2026-03-0314:533 reply

    Many of today's news websites (tech or otherwise) cashed in their goodwill / reputation / page rank to sell ads.

    The first shoe dropped when news websites realized they weren't generating content fast enough. Hard, in depth journalism takes time, but when people want to know something that happened _today_, they don't want to wait a week for all the facts to come out, and so the major websites started losing traffic to websites that churned out articles fast.

    The additional benefit of churning out articles was that you could match against more and more long tail keywords, which lead to more traffic and more ability to sell ads. To keep up, many websites dropped quality for speed, and consumers noticed.

    The second shoe then to drop was with affiliate marketing -- articles on CNET / Wirecutter etc were already ranking and rating products, so they figured "[...] why shouldn't we get a cut if someone ends up buying a product we recommend"? The challenge then became that consumers couldn't tell the difference between a product that was recommended because it was good, or because the product gave the biggest "kickback" to the website for using the affiliate link. Thus, people that gave "honest" opinions on products (e.g. people asking on Reddit, at least for a while, as the article suggests) became the new source of truth.

    The result of this means that these days, if you read a lot of articles on the major tech websites, they feel more like they've been optimized for speed (e.g. churning out an article fast), SEO, and not much else. Many people have talked about how recipie websites are now short story generators more than food instructions, but it's been common for a while where I go to a tech website to read about something I specifically Googled, only for it to feel more like it was written _specifically_ to capture traffic for a keyword, rather than actually solve the issue or question I came into the website with.

    The cherry on top is that AI has none of these problems (so far) -- yes, there's some movement on trying to do SEO for AI, and of course ads will eventually come to AI like it has everything else, but currently, you can get the answers you want, described to you exactly how you'd like to hear it -- who wouldn't want that?

    • By doug_durham 2026-03-0321:48

      Why do you think that they are pushing so many ads? It is because they have too much money? Most sites are struggling to pay the few employees they have. Fewer ads aren't going to lead to better reporting. Would you be willing to pay a subscription to the website? Probably not.

    • By flakeoil 2026-03-0315:003 reply

      > you can get the answers you want, described to you exactly how you'd like to hear it

      I thought we wanted the truth.

      • By Trav5 2026-03-0315:07

        Some of us do but many people do not. Source: Married for 22 years.

      • By pocksuppet 2026-03-0317:46

        Stated and revealed preferences

      • By pousada 2026-03-0318:59

        You can’t handle the truth

    • By onetokeoverthe 2026-03-046:38

      [dead]

  • By xrd 2026-03-0314:0711 reply

    I recently replaced a power supply to upgrade a GPU. I bought the power supply on Cragslist, so it had a jumble of cables and no manual. In the past I would have read an article that I would have found on one of those sites.

    This time I conversed entirely with Gemini, sending pictures of the cables and of the components and the motherboard.

    I'll not soon forget when I plugged in a cable incorrectly and sent an image of that cable to Gemini.

    Gemini said "It is very important that you stop and unplug that cable immediately... Hopefully the power supply's safety precautions kicked in before any permanent damage occurred."

    I know that Gemini was conversing with me using plagiarized information from all those sites. But, it was so much better to do this than to try to synthesize that in my brain by reading a bunch of articles.

    I don't see a future for tech content because Gemini isn't paying the authors and they don't give me an option to direct payments to them either.

    • By Latty 2026-03-0316:092 reply

      It's crazy to me that you'd trust the output of an LLM for that. It's something where if you do it wrong it could cause major damage, and LLMs are literally famous for creating plausbile-sounding but wrong output.

      If you wanted to use an LLM to identify it, sure, you can validate that, and then find the manufacturer instructions and use those. Just following what it says about the cables without any validation it's correct is just wild to me. These are products with instruction manuals made for them specifically designed for this.

      • By visarga 2026-03-0319:521 reply

        > It's crazy to me that you'd trust the output of an LLM for that. It's something where if you do it wrong it could cause major damage,

        With critical tasks you need to cross reference multiple AI, start by running 4 deep reports, on Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity, then put all of them into a comparative - critical analysis round. This reduces variance, the models are different, and using different search tools, you can even send them in different directions, one searches blogs, one reddit, etc.

        • By Latty 2026-03-0320:09

          Or you can ask for a link to the manual. I genuinely can't tell if your post is real advice or sarcasm intended to highlight the insanity of trying to fit square pegs in round holes of using LLMs for everything.

      • By ashleyn 2026-03-0319:05

        I'd probably view LLM advice like the blind spot indicator on my car. Trust when it's lit. Don't trust when it's not lit.

    • By PacificSpecific 2026-03-0314:146 reply

      If the hardware changes significantly and those sites don't exist in the future wouldn't that mean gemeni would degrade in quality because it has nothing to pull from?

      • By hydrogen7800 2026-03-0314:214 reply

        Right, that success story is only because there was "organic" (for lack of a better term) information from an original source. What happens when all information is nth generation AI feedback with all links to the original source lost?

        Edit: A question from AI/LLM ignorance- Can the source database for an LLM be one-way, in that it does not contain output from itself, or other LLMs? I can imagine a quarantined database used for specific applications that remains curated, but this seems impossible on the open internet.

        • By bigthymer 2026-03-0315:04

          > Can the source database for an LLM be one-way, in that it does not contain output from itself, or other LLMs?

          I think, for public internet data, we can only be reasonably confident for information before the big release of ChatGPT.

        • By nsvd2 2026-03-0318:20

          Yes, people have likened pre-LLM Internet content to low-background steel.

          If in the hypothetical future the continual learning problem gets solved, the AI could just learn from the real world instead of publications and retain that data.

        • By nprateem 2026-03-0320:54

          One reason why Google made that algorithm to watermark AI output

        • By black_puppydog 2026-03-0314:46

          That's exactly why text written before the first LLMs has a premium on it these days. So no, all major models suffer from slop in their training data.

      • By andy81 2026-03-0314:193 reply

        We've all tried to ask the LLM about something outside of its training data by now.

        In that situation, they give the (wrong) answer that sounds the most plausible.

        • By PacificSpecific 2026-03-0314:291 reply

          That's definitely been my experience. I work with a lot of weird code bases that have never been public facing and AI has horrible responses for that stuff.

          As soon as I tried to make a todomvc it started working great but I wonder how much value that really brings to the table.

          It's great for me though. I can finally make a todomvc tailored to my specific needs.

          • By ctoth 2026-03-0317:591 reply

            I'm not sure what sorts of weird codebases you're working with but I recently saw Claude programming well on a Lambda MOO -- weirder than that?

            • By PacificSpecific 2026-03-040:19

              I had to Google that haha.

              It's in that realm but more complex. I do plan to repeatedly come back and try though. Just so far it hasn't been useful.

        • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2026-03-0315:26

          Once or twice, for me it's deflected rather than answer at all.

          On the other hand, they've also surfaced information (later independently confirmed by myself) that I had not been able to find for years. I don't know what to make of it.

        • By visarga 2026-03-0319:57

          > In that situation, they give the (wrong) answer that sounds the most plausible.

          Not if you use web search or deep report, you should not use LLMs as knowledge bases, they are language models - they learn language not information, and are just models not replicas of the training set.

      • By elictronic 2026-03-0315:35

        This then becomes the hardware manufacturers problem. If their new hardware fails for to many users it will no longer be purchased. If they externalize their problem solving like so many companies, they won't be able to gain market share.

        This creates financial incentives to pay companies running the new version of search. Your thinking of this as a problem for these companies, when in reality it is a financial incentive.

      • By visarga 2026-03-0319:56

        > because it has nothing to pull from?

        Chat rooms produce trillions of tokens per day now, interactive tokens, where AI can poke and prod at us, and have its ideas tested in the real world (by us).

      • By esperent 2026-03-0314:252 reply

        Presumably companies will still provide manuals.

        • By SiempreViernes 2026-03-0315:02

          It'll be a single sheet of paper with a QR code that redirects to a canned prompt hosted at whichever LLM server paid the most to the manufacturer for their content.

        • By PacificSpecific 2026-03-0314:40

          If that was adequate then wouldn't there not be supplementary material?

          Results vary of course. I have some very wonderful synthesizer manuals.

      • By roxolotl 2026-03-0315:35

        Yea so I’ve had an issue getting video output after boot on a new AMD R9700 Pro. None of the, albeit free, models from OpenAI/Google/Anthropic have really been helpful. I found the pro drivers myself. They never mentioned them.

        Thats not to say AI is bad. It’s great in many cases. More that I’m worried about what happens when the repositories of new knowledge get hollowed out.

        Also my favorite response was this gem from Sonnet:

        > TL;DR: Move your monitor cable from the motherboard to the graphics card.

    • By nancyminusone 2026-03-0316:18

      That's more than a little concerning you would put full faith in AI to connect expensive hardware without verifying.

      I'd at least ask for a citation to the product manual (even though half the time it cites another fucking AI generated site instead)

    • By BoredPositron 2026-03-0314:481 reply

      I have never seen a review site or tech blog go into detail about how to wire a specific power supply to a specific motherboard. I would also never go to such a site to get information I can easily get from the manufacturer through a handbook but I would also never ask a chatbot. Really odd use case tbh.

      • By esseph 2026-03-0315:53

        > Really odd use case tbh.

        For 99.99999% of people out there, LLMs are the new search. You can gnash teeth and yell and sob, but it is how things are.

    • By throwaway85825 2026-03-0315:22

      There is no modular PSU cable standard. Mixing cables between PSUs can destroy your hardware. Even among the same brand there is no standard.

    • By cj 2026-03-0316:02

      Same experience here: someone at our company had a bricked Macbook Pro. It was previously MDM-managed with JamF, and it wouldn't boot up. Asked ChatGPT to give me steps to fix it.

      The first set of steps didn't work, so we iteratively sent pictures of the screen until the steps eventually did work and the issue was fixed.

      This saved us from having to call Apple support.

    • By righthand 2026-03-0314:18

      I see a future just like the seo issue of today, where the well is poisoned and llm information is garbage.

    • By dehrmann 2026-03-0316:351 reply

      > I'll not soon forget when I plugged in a cable incorrectly

      I'm surprised this was a problem. Back in the day, there were things like making sure your two very similar AT power connectors had the black wires next to each other, not forcing in a molex connector upside down, or the same for ribbon cables. These days? The connectors are standardized and keyed, as long as your modular PSU vendor didn't get lazy on their keying.

      • By vel0city 2026-03-0319:241 reply

        FWIW, things are standardized and keyed on the ATX board side of things. They aren't standardized on the power supply side of a modular power supply. Unless you've absolutely confirmed pinouts, never swap cables between modular power supplies. Fitment doesn't imply its actually going to put the right voltage on the right pins. Even within the same manufacturer pinouts have sometimes been different between models!

        • By delecti 2026-03-0320:01

          Also, some non-standard hardware looks very standard. (At least some) Dell motherboard/PSU connectors infamously are physically compatible (the plug fits the socket) with the ATX standard, but the wiring is sufficiently different that it can damage or be damaged by other hardware.

    • By beej71 2026-03-0315:57

      > But, it was so much better to do this than to try to synthesize that in my brain

      For some definitions of "better", that is. :(

    • By onetokeoverthe 2026-03-046:40

      [dead]

HackerNews

About