4,964 karma · joined October 31, 2013
Off by an order of magnitude! Pac-man sizes:
4K: Atari 2600 (it's bad)
8K: Atari 800
16K: Atari 800 Ms. Pac-Man
24K: Original arcade machine (Z80)
BTW, Atari 2600 "Flappy" (4K):
https://atariage.com/store/index.php?l=product_detail&p=1038Yeah, I was guessing...
>As far as fixing them? I really don’t give a shit.
What would you suggest then? Kill them all?
Band 10 and above include good soft-skills, people who can persuade the industry and organization, give TED talks, etc.
This was to replace the previous system: professor John van Alstyne just did it over a weekend.
Also I assume that both AMD and Intel bought FPGA companies for FPGA co-processor acceleration opportunities. I don't think this has panned out.. I know Microsoft has their bing FPGA accelerator, but I don't think FPGAs have made any dent in the AI space, and are certainly not essential in any of the hyperscalers. Maybe AMD will sell Xilinx at some point.
>they partitioned off the entirety of the transceivers to a separate tile fab'd by TSMC and sellotaped to the edge of the Stratix 10
awesome.. I could imagine it was too risky to redesign the transceivers.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/21504/intel-18a-status-update...
"For Intel, getting an external PDK out for a leading-edge process node is no small feat, as the company has spent decades operating its fabs for the benefit of its internal product design teams. A useful PDK for external customers – and really, a useful fab environment altogether – not only needs process nodes that stick to their specifications rather than making bespoke adjustments, but it means that Intel needs to document and define all of this in a useful, industry standard fashion. One of the major failings of Intel’s previous efforts to get into the contract foundry business, besides being half-hearted efforts overall, is that they didn’t author PDKs that external companies could easily use. "
But some bad news today:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/intel-manufacturing-busin...
Altera 10-series FPGAs were massively delayed due to Intel's 10 nm fab problems. But I speculate that there was also a big difference in toolchains, does anyone know for sure? I mean Altera was using TSMC previously, and I presume were using industry standard tools: Cadance / Synopsis. But I would guess Intel was running their fab on home-grown tools... what is the status these days? For example I know for sure that IBM's synthesis was "Booledozer".
It's interesting because maybe Intel will spin out the fab business. But are they immediately ready to become a commercial fab business instead an Intel-only business? What's the toolchain like for Intel fab?
There are 5000 year old wood beams in the Egyptian pyramids.
There are regular riots between the christian sects over turf within the Church. Just search on youtube..
"Recent Interesting and Useful Enhancements of Polyphase Filter Banks: fred harris"
I like the OS/8 file allocation scheme: files are always contiguous. Only one growing file can be open for writing and it allocates space out of the contiguous free space (actually it owns all of the free space until the file is closed, where the unused space is then given back). If you run out of disk space, you have to compact the disk, eliminating space taken up by deleted files.
I like it because it's illustrates the surprising fact that you can get away with only one file open for writing for most things.
http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/mit_emacs_170_teco_1220/01/e...
From this we can conclude that humans do not need any nice things like programming languages, assemblers or compilers to program effectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
There is one company trying it:
Muon production efficiency optimization is a worthwhile engineering problem. The accelerator needed to make the muons can already be made more efficient than assumed in the classic papers.
Muon-catalyzed fusion does not require the unlikely combination of 100M degree plasma generating huge power right next to cryogenic superconducting magnets.
Muon-catalyzed fusion can already run continuously, unlike plasma fusion. There is none of this "it can run for x seconds" nonsense.
The efficiency needs to be greater than 1, but all parts of the power plant are included in this calculation. So, for example, making a more efficient steam turbine helps. So consider..
A tritium breeding blanket is needed for all kinds of D-T fusion including plasma to locally make the tritium fuel from the fusion neutrons. If you include U-238 in it, you double the power output thanks to all of the resulting fissions.. just as in an H-bomb. This could push the plant efficiency above 1..
Reminds me: there are new tubes based on VFD:
https://www.korgnutube.com/en (only 12mW heater power)
Very old 1920s tubes also used direct cathodes (but used a huge amount of heater power). If you look at the circuits, they had to jump through hoops to have the desired grid to cathode bias while at the same time providing the heater current. I think this would be easier for logic gates: set all of them to ground.