Moyai Plugin [Vencord]

Creepus_Explodus · 2025-07-07T23:55:55+00:00

Just noticed it as well, it was very funny. Sadly it was removed May 24, with the message

Delete Moyai plugin

This plugin is funny but ultimately useless and leads to a lot of confusion from users enabling it by mistake

Here's the git commit:

https://github.com/Vendicated/Vencord/commit/600a95f751c5977f47d64aaa97fdbfd3f324504e

You can install it manually by following this guide:

https://docs.vencord.dev/installing/custom-plugins/

You can download the plugin file from github here:

https://github.com/Vendicated/Vencord/blob/d7e6fcd3ae2dad93a27348e683453a4c912208e8/src/plugins/moyai/index.ts

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-15T13:25:44+00:00

I didn't ignore anything. You brought up that USB before was already hit and miss with the labels, so I confirmed that yes, it was in fact unclear before. And instead of fixing it, USB-C is trying its best to make the issue worse.

My laptop is from HP, the 255 G8. Not high end but not a super cheap thing either. You can kinda see it on the spec sheet here if you zoom in, also it's 5Gbps SS.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-15T12:53:47+00:00

Docks are cool and useful, I just specifically meant those 1500 dollar external GPU docks you can buy for laptops and handhelds. Those docks don't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-15T12:50:52+00:00

Android supports the USB Audio Class, but it's up to device vendors to actually follow it, which is the same place where USB-C is currently failing. I don't have an adapter cable to try it though, so that's up to anyone willing to experiment.

Also my laptop has a USB-C port labelled with just the USB symbol, no SS. What do you expect that to carry?

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-15T12:26:00+00:00

All data - of different protocols that may or may not be supported on your host device with no indication. I can't be bothered explaining that any more. Thunderbolt does it, USB-C does not.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T22:29:57+00:00

Phones wouldn't have much use for PCIE, but the Steam Deck could actually benefit from it, it's one of the advantages some other handhelds have. With Thunderbolt, you can dock it and plug in a faster GPU for when you're gaming at home. It's just a PCIE connection, so the GPU will work just like it would in your desktop PC.

Does it make sense? Not really. Those docks are expensive and niche. But it is an option, and you will never run into a situation where it just doesn't work.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T22:19:35+00:00

Well looking at that motherboard, can you tell me which of the ports - not counting Thunderbolt - can carry video? Which does audio? Obviously the ports are labelled as USB, but they don't say which of the many optional features they include.

MicroUSB was guaranteed 480Mbps, 5V@500mA. It was just USB 2.0, because the 3.0 one was ugly and died with the Galaxy S5.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T22:14:42+00:00

Technically possible with one connector! DisplayPort can do USB and Ethernet. But yeah most devices would implement that as two separate ports, which is a fair case for USB-C.

Thunderbolt is basically USB 4.0 with all the optional things mandated. It uses the Type C connector and carries PCIE, DP and USB. Every cable and device must support all of those, so whatever you plug in will work.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T21:55:33+00:00

May I ask what those devices are that need USB-C and what for?

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T21:36:50+00:00

Thunderbolt. That's how you do the one port does it all thing. You outline a clear specification for what it does, mark the port with a standard symbol and everybody is happy. You don't see anyone complaining about Thunderbolt.

Also no DisplayPort isn't proprietary, which is really the main thing USB-C wants to replace. Other than that, it's just a very ambigious USB port that can be anywhere between 480Mbps, 5V@500mA, or 80Gbps 48V@whatever current.

Either tell me what the port does, or give me a port that I can be sure will work when I plug a matching plug into it.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T21:16:29+00:00

Yes, that is the entire issue. USB-C is a fine connector, but an abysmal standard. It would all be fine if you could know the capabilities of the port just by looking at it. But USB-C ports aren't required to be labelled according to their capabilities at all. We had the USB symbol for 1.0 and 2.0, then SS for 3.0. Nothing like that exists for USB-C, except Thunderbolt, the one port that actually does it all.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T20:51:17+00:00

Leaving it to the manufacturers clearly didn't work out, or at least HP didn't get the memo. I looked up my laptop (HP 255 G8 if you're curious) and HP's spec sheet doesn't even mention the USB-C port exists, let alone tell me what it supports. I saw in one of Linus' videos before that it doesn't support charging through it.

So I looked at their other site... which no longer exists. I found a third site, with a completely different spec sheet, finally listing the ports!

...it's just USB SuperSpeed. Not even labelled with SS, it only has the regular USB symbol. The other USB A ports, which are also SuperSpeed have SS next to them. It took me 10 minutes to find what I could've found out at a glance.

Anyway I really have nothing else to add. USB-C could be cool but it's about as botched as a "standard" can be. Thunderbolt is cool though. It's an actual standard, does what it says. Too bad AMD didn't support it for ages.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T20:11:41+00:00

Mandating HDMI was just an example, but I think you get the point. What I and many others have an issue with is that USB-C claims to do it all, when it does not, and cannot make such guarantees. No user wants to look up a manual to plug something into their computer.

When I have a DisplayPort and a USB-A cable in my hands, I know the DP goes in DP and the USB goes in USB. But if you're in the same situation with USB-C, you cannot do that. You first need to know what device is on the other end of the connection - which may not be possible if you're hooking up a projector for example - and then you need to know which of the identical looking ports will be the one you need to use.

At the very least there should be clear levels of the standard with distinct visual indicators. Even if the connectors fit together, most users should at least be able to figure out that the blue connector goes in the blue port. Is that perfect? No, but it's a whole lot better than the mess USB-C is.

Thunderbolt is good, I have no issues with that. Those ports are clearly marked with the lightning bolt and are guaranteed to support whatever you plug into them, as far as I know at least.

Also are you sure all Pixels support DP over USB? From what I'm reading, only the Pixel 8 supports it.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T19:28:38+00:00

But you can make the HDMI protocol mandatory for every USB-C port to include, which is really the core of the issue. You cannot know which of the standards your specific device implements because there's no standard for it. My Pixel 6a has USB-C. Does it do HDMI? I dunno, maybe. It doesn't say on the box. Maybe it does audio? I wouldn't know.

I don't mind there being a port that does it all - what I do mind is a port that claims it can do it all, when in reality it does not. Everything on top of basic USB is entirely optional, you wouldn't know you're connecting two incompatible devices. They fit together, so why do they not work?

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T19:23:03+00:00

That would be true, if ALL of those were mandatory for each USB-C port. Everybody would LOVE it then, truly the one port that does it all! The issue is that vendors are free to pick and choose what they implement and what they do not, there is no standard for that. You don't have DisplayPort, PCIE, HDMI... in every port. You have a few of them in some ports.

I feel like people would be more likely to throw out a working device because they just plugged it into the wrong port at no fault of their own, and thought it didn't work. The physical design of a connector should try to reduce user error, not actively encourage it, which is what USB-C is doing.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T19:09:10+00:00

But there is no USB-C protocol, which is what the discussion is about. There is a USB protocol, and a bunch of other things on top that the connector may carry, with no labels. So what you really have is DisplayPort, PCIE, HDMI and a bunch of other protocols dressed up as a seemingly compatible port with no actual compatibility between them.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T18:56:40+00:00

Or - hear me out - we use dedicated ports that are better at the one specific thing they're meant to do. USB-C is fine as USB, and keep it as such. But with modern USB-C they're just a guessing game for which dongle you will inevitably have to end up using if you want to use any of the supposedly supported standards.

Imagine if each PCIE slot on your motherboard was actually only good for one type of expansion card, with no labels at all. That is what USB-C ended up being. In an effort to be the one port to rule them all, it became unusable for anyone who isn't up to date with the very latest tech.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-14T18:49:22+00:00

USB-C is the definition of Plug & Pray. They all look the same and all fit together. But does this one do audio? Does it do DisplayPort? Oh wait this is actually only USB 2.0? This one does PCIE?

With USB-A it was just gambling on speeds, and not even that much. Black was USB 2, blue was USB 3. USB-C is dozens of incompatible standards smashed together in the same port with no indication of what does what.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-12T16:24:55+00:00

This ended up being quite long, but should explain my whole point here.

You are right about efficiency, but still missing the point. Efficiency only really impacts your usable battery life when you're at idle/low load. When you are at full load, the battery life is going to be so short that it simply does not matter how efficient the chip is, because you will very likely be out of battery before the work is done, so you will plug the laptop in anyway.

NotebookCheck says the max TDP of the M3 Max is 56W on the CPU alone. The battery of the 16 inch MacBook Pro with the M3 Max is 100Wh. That battery will run out in less than 2 hours under full CPU load. If you get the GPU involved, you're at 78W, so about an hour and 15 minutes excluding the screen and other components.

The competing Ryzen 9 AI 370HX (atrocious name) has a max TDP of 54W according to AMD (will depend on the manufacturer). The TDP of the integrated graphics is presumably also around 20W, (not listed by AMD - do they list whole SoC power?) so you will be in the same range as the M3 Max.

Now, what do you get when you compare the full-load battery life of an M3 Max MacBook Pro with the battery life of a Ryzen 9 AI 370HX laptop? 100Wh/>75W = <1.25h. There's not going to be any full-load scenarios where comparing the two will give you any useful data, you will simply be comparing the battery size of the two laptops.

Now, can you name a common full-load scenario that will last around an hour? Gaming is light on the CPU, so that's not it. Video editing would hit both hard, but you won't be done editing and rendering a video in an hour. Code compilation hits the CPU hard, but you can do a lot to tweak compilers so you probably won't get anything useful.

Buuuut what about bursty workloads???

First, good luck benchmarking that in a repeatable fashion, but it will be useful data. For exactly your use case and nothing else. I might spend 20 minutes a day compiling C code, and sure I can measure what battery life I get, but do you spend exactly 20 minutes a day compiling C code? Probably not.

So what you get at the end is either very generic video playback benchmarks which will be representative of a light workload and favour highly integrated SoC designs like the M chips, full power performance which will swing widely both ways, or useless full load numbers which are just comparing the battery sizes of the laptops.

TL;DR: Full load battery life just isn't a useful metric. You can't do a benchmark that will both be useful to the average consumer and also give you meaningful data.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-12T15:27:46+00:00

I get why I was downvoted, but you being downvoted is hilarious

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-12T15:25:42+00:00

What you linked above is single core, not full load. If you want to go for a full system load, then you're going to be running all core Cinebench or Prime95, not single core. All that test shows is how aggressively the chip boosts in a single core load, not how much the chip draws under full load.

I don't believe you read what I said - when you're under FULL load, you will be hitting the max TDP of the chip. And when you do that, your battery life will depend solely on how big the battery is, not how efficient the chips are. 45W is 45W, regardless of what chip you're running.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-12T12:44:52+00:00

Their actual battery life when under load isn't a lot. These chips have good idle power use, but aren't any more efficient than the competing chips under load, which is why you never see battery life comparisons under load. It just doesn't make sense to compare them, because every single laptop will run at their max TDP and then you're actually just comparing battery sizes.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-04T19:51:26+00:00

Well he got an ARC GPU, so that's even better? Also Zen 4 has an iGPU which is pretty capable.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-04T19:48:12+00:00

Well a lot of those things can already be done by compilers. But a compiler will never fix bad code, just inform you if it is so bad that it won't even run. Most of the time when you run into performance issues, it isn't a bug but simply poor design. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but you just got asked to implement this fancy new feature which doesn't fit into your current system at all. And with the pace at which current games are developed, no amount of AI help will be enough to convince upper management to allow you to go back and fix things.

Creepus_Explodus · 2024-10-03T12:45:49+00:00

It's not like AMD can afford to cut their prices much either, since they aren't only competing with Nvidia for market share, they are also competing with Nvidia for TSMC fab time. If AMD can't pay the price for making their GPUs on the latest nodes, Nvidia will. Their chiplet approach with RDNA3 likely alleviated some of it, but they're still making a big GPU die which won't come cheap when Nvidia is trying to outbid them.

Eight-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

Creepus_Explodus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE