Very surreal to think about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame:_Singularity
Early in the game, you'd hack machines to run mechanical-turk style jobs to earn money. Later you'd build a factory to manufacture more processors... ;)
Some of the first bitcoin faucets had captchas to “reduce spam”, as in prevent humans from getting too much free bitcoin, but really the captcha was a real captcha that a bot was stuck on, and was just paying humans to solve them to access some greater bounty
Pretty sure at the time the cost was something like .013 cents per solve. I always wondered who the people sitting there doing that were or what their situation was.
It went from 0 captchas per day to 10000 captchas/day over the course of about a month with just word-of-mouth. Then the upstream service just quit paying me with no explanation. My accuracy rates were good. Maybe latency was high? I don’t know why they terminated it. But I struggled to keep the users while finding a replacement, and in the end I shut it down.
On the one hand, I’m bummed, because that thing could have mostly run itself and made a tidy profit for someone still pursuing a degree. On the other hand... maybe it was for the best: 90% of captcha solving work is paid for by spammers who make the internet worse.
Would you be willing to accept or at least corroborate that cryptocurrency mining is one of the cleanest sectors and a boon for sustainability?
70-80% of that energy use is renewable energy or reducing pollution - specifically hydrocarbons. So existing energy is not being wasted or reallocated, and additional unclean energy is not being ramped up to facilitate mining, and previously wasted energy that was going into the atmosphere is now being used.
The educated discussion is to make sure it stays this way. As nation states are the only actors that could mine at a loss with inefficient ways.
Downloading singularity-1.00-win.zip from https://github.com/singularity/singularity/releases/tag/v1.0... also fails.
Edit: Cylance doesn't like the main exe. I think Cylance is full of shit.
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/39e13204ff3dea8b00a93f73...
>Download 1.00, released 07-04-2020
Mindblowing that this is still under active development after all this time. I can't wait to get home and play it to see what's changed.
[1] https://zerohplovecraft.wordpress.com/2018/05/11/the-gig-eco...
Early lights out production. The problem became obvious a little later, for NeXT, which was that these things only make sense at very high scale for products that change infrequently.
Not sure if NeXT was a pioneer in those techniques, but they seemed standard by the late 1990s and 2000s.
Their golden days were during the first cellphone boom. Back then, the level of integration was lesser, and you had more discrete components on more smaller boards, and volumes were of course very high during the boom time.
Now, you can have a "dumphone" made with just 30 parts on the pcb, and very few passives.
From my experience over the decade, people running factories came to love having multiple, cheaper mounters, and more lines.
The "superboard" concept is also seem to be waning, as you see more, and more individual boards in products like smartphones. It makes for less manufacturable designs, but additional labour expense is not dramatic.
The only thing is an obnoxious warranty void sticker that delaminates if you don’t lift it carefully but even then I don’t think it’s legal to void the warranty with a sticker (Switzerland, bought from a EU retailer)
There are three flexes in just this one iFixit photo of one side of a Switch Lite: https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/sbTwHYTEZOaWX3IQ.f...
Tape takes a number of forms. Holding down flexes to manage pull-out forces is pretty common. You can do that with traditional single-sided tape if you have the space on something to adhere it, but increasingly common is a double-sided tape on the flex itself. You peel off a liner and stick it down. It wouldn't surprise me if there are liner-less heat-activated tapes too, but I don't know of them myself. That's outside my domain.
The spiky-ended tweezers will damage an FFC though.
Basically it’s unlike software and that might be where he stumbled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/opinion/andy-groves-warni...
If that's the case, then aren't they using it for Model 3/Y already? If yes, then I have to disagree with you, because neither of those cars look anything like Cybertruck, even stylistically.
EDIT: thanks for explanation in the replies, it makes sense. If anyone has any additional insight as to how it affects production lines that are, let's say, 90% automated and 10% manual, your contribution would be heavily appreciated.
https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/94982-lights-out-automa...
Maybe with the AI vision recognition systems being developed now, that such a robot will become available in the future.
I'm amazed that Sony let out detailed pictures of the cable connecting operation. Looks like they use both a camera and a force feedback wrist.
Insert meme "Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time"
But I still have one somewhere in a cupboard.
Really? That's fascinating to me, given how accurate pick'n'place robots are. I would have thought they required similar capabilities.
Cables and tape are not as uniform and have a tendency to move in random directions.
I'm sure someone's probably already thought of this, but couldn't you deal with that by having two manipulators that hold the cable by both ends while keeping a small amount of tension on it? The cable could be picked up by dispensing it through a narrow U-shaped hole (to stop the loose end for grasping), or by gluing one end to a dispenser reel then having the one of the manipulators follow the cable to the other end like a person would pull a rope through their fingers.
Seven years production run (or more), that should explain a lot. Even if hardware revisions changed significantly in that time (I wouldn't know) that's still a completely different calculation than something that changes annually, or even twice a year, as Sony's own Xperia phones used to.
But bandwidth is not quite the same as throughput either, so I'll answer your question genuinely. Bandwidth typically refers to the actual channel capacity for a single link. Maybe that's your PCIe lane, your wifi channel or your HDRadio channel. The bandwidth is often measured as the spectral width of the channel in frequency. But those channels include some coding for error detection or compression.
Ultimately what matters most is what kind of throughput the channel can deliver. This is the metric that is often measured in bytes or bits per second. A one gigabit Ethernet card is intended to deliver one gigabit/sec of throughput with the Ethernet channel coding. So if you hooked up a test device to your NIC it should be able to drive frames through an otherwise unoccupied channel at one gigabit/sec. But to keep the example interesting, end-users would generally measure throughput with all the added layers of coding and protocol provided by a network stack. The term "bandwidth" is much more nebulous when someone uses it to describe traffic spanning various buses and network media. I'd take context clues and assume that this usage of the term is somewhat like throughput. Though perhaps you could consider the independent physical channels as a single logical one and extrapolate some kind of conceptual bandwidth?
Sorry, starting to ramble a bit at the end there but I think you may get the gist.