Hacker News Reader

Comment by rogerrogerr | Hacker News Reader

Or a third option - an economic success that economies of scale have made massively capable hardware the cheapest option for many applications, despite being overkill.

View on HN

Also see: USB 3+ e-marker chips. I'm still waiting for a Doom port on those.

Or the fourth option, an environmental disaster all around

The materials that go into a chip are nothing. The process of making the chip is roughly the same no matter the power of it. So having one chip that can satisfy a large range of customers needs is so much better than wasting development time making a custom just good enough chip for each.

> The materials that go into a chip are nothing.

They really aren't. Every material that goes into every chip needs to be sourced from various mines around the world, shipped to factories to be assembled, then the end goods need to be shipped again around the world to be sold or directly dumped.

High power, low power, it all has negative environmental impact.

Which materials are they and how would you suggest doing it with fewer materials?

In theory, graphene based semiconductors would eliminate a lot of need for shipping and mining.

Maybe. They have the potential for faster semiconductors, but only after adequate modifications. Graphene isn't a semiconductor, and it isn't obvious that we'll find a way to fix that without (or even with) rare resources.

ultra pure water production itself is responsible for untold amounts of hydroflouric acid and ammonia , and most etching processes have an F-Gas involved, and most plants that do this work have tremendously high energy (power) costs due to stability needs/hvac.

it's not 'just sand'.

How would you suggest doing it with fewer materials?

The claim was that "the materials that go into a chip are nothing". Arguing that that is not that case does not really put someone on the hook to explain or even have any clue how to do it better.

Cease production.

Why are you on a technology site?

I'm not sure why you're asking this or what you're insinuating. The site is called Hacker News, it should be open to anarcho- and eco- hackers too. Not all of believe in infinite growth.

Do you want to expand on why you're on this site?

I've been here for more than 15 years and I'm not the person I was when I signed up or when I went through life in a startup.

That doesn't contradict the point, though. The negative impact on the environment is not reduced by making a less powered chip.

No, hence "all around."

It’s the opposite. Using an off the shelf MCU is much more efficient than trying to spin your own ASIC.

Doing the work in software allows for updates and bug fixes, which are more likely to prevent piles of hardware from going into the landfill (in some cases before they even reach customers’ hands).

Nobody cares, unless they’re commenting for an easy win on internet message boards.

You have to use a chip, and no matter what kind of chip you're paying for the same raw resources.

I don't think you have an actual argument here, you just want to be indignant and contrarian.

What do you mean? Earbud are environmental disasters?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com