panick21

Watch the QA.

Basically, they Nvidia ecosystem is to closed for them to add value. And competing with Nvidia is difficult so its not their focus.

And Bretton woods solved nothing at all, it was a system that took a very long to implment, much longer then people think and was unstable almost as soon as it was implemented.

And that doesn't really change any argument I made in my post.

I would watcher most American literally have never in their live ever seen how 'rezent' Emmentaler is supposed to look. Honestly its hard to get even in Switzerland.

A proper 'rezent' Emmentaler literally has a thick salt crust inside of the holes.

This is typical even in Switzerland, and I wager its better then most 'Swiss' you get in the US:

https://www.migros.ch/en/product/210119408500

But if you want the elite stuff, it looks like this:

https://emmentaler-schaukaeserei.ch/en/shop/produkte/Emmenta...

But to get that, you are going to have to store it a long time, and that reflects in the price. The stuff sold in the US is usually stored much shorter.

And that would be an argument about reactor safty not civilian nuclear waste managment anyway.

> So acting like there's zero danger is stupid.

Danger is not zero but its incredibly small. As has been confiremd by every single topic on the subject. Saying 'its not zero' is literally always possible for anything humanity ever does.

> Not caring about the future generations is also how we got here, so theres that.

Usuing rational science based methods for evaluating safty and how figuring out what is actually the best is what I am advocating for going forward.

Instead of how we got here, witch was actually using feelings to pick something that is actually more unsafe and generally worse both for people and for the envoirment. That is what you are doing.

> But you know, if you were a rational person who cared, you'd google this stuff yourself

And if you were actually interested in real discussion or evaluating my actual argment you would more then just google for random nuclear incidents as if they proved your point. But clearly you don't care about that.

I was actually qutite specific in what I said, and you of course ignored, I said civilan nuclear waste. And Hanford does not apply, as it a completely different situation.

So nothing you posted actually address either of the questions I have posed to you. I suppose that is because you don't have an actual answer and instead you just try to distract people with links to random things you could google.

https://openhwfoundation.org/

Or because its part of OpenTitan, Ibex sees a lot of development: https://github.com/lowRISC/ibex

I think Amiga was fine at reading the room, at least the engineers. But the never did any signifciant chip develpement to improve things. Only the new chipset for the Amiga 1200 when it was already much to late.

And if in the next 100 years or so there is some natural change that makes that location a problem, you move it to another already existing nuclear reactor and leave it there.

If society collapses to such an extent that you do not have the capability to move around some nuclear 'waste' every couple 100 years then your society has much, much bigger problems anyway.

The idea that we can't or shouldn't build nuclear reactor because we don't have a location where we can put things in one place that is safe for 100000 years is just so fucking absurd if you actually think about it. But its not really about thinking, its all just political theater for uniformed people.

I always thought PA-RISC was a great RISC and it an interesting concept.

But even in that case that wouldn't have been the CPU. Commodore never dared to do that after the 6502 (of course that team left Commodore).

To improve performance you need to start to add cache in or around your CPU/MMU and you need an increasingly clever memory chip to arbitrate memory access.

But you are right, you always going to run into limitations. As RAM is the most expensive part of the BOM, literally anything you can do to get maximum utilily of out of the memory bandwith is where you need to spend design time.

Like ARM did a 16 bit encoding for your 32 bit RISC would have been a great design feature to further reduce the how intensive it is to keep the CPU active. Of course nobody had thought of that combination, that was an early 90s thing.

RAM is just so expensive back then, you build your machine around sharing it as well as you can and living with the downsides.

> Also note that one of the original ideas for the Amiga, was to get into the UNIX workstation market

Could you source that for me? It might be true. I heard from interviews with Jay Minor that they were developing a game console, and then when the 1982 crash happened, he convinced them to pivot to a home computer. And specifically he wanted it to run games like flight simulation.

Commodore explicitly cancled its own Amiga workstation, the Z8000 based Commodore 900 Unix workstation.

When Amiga lauched they lauched with games and with pixel editors. It was endorsed by EA.

Doesn't sound like 'unix workstation' to me. It was later in the 1980s where they started to want to get into that market.

PS: BeBox much later, by then the PC ecosystem had already done most of that stuff.

While on the other hand, RAM is easely equal to all other chips on the board combined.

So you need to desperatly do everything you can to limit RAM usage. That's why Amiga was smart to do shared RAM between the CPU and the Chipset. The Archimedes did the same thing as well. And ideally you get some SRAM on there not depend on the RAM to much, ARM3 chip did that and speed improved by a huge extent.

And you really need a good operating system that could give you advanced features without completely blowing up your RAM.

That is why it is sad that nobody with sufficent capital to pump into costume chip design took on a project like that, as it needs to be somebody with the volume the economics work out.

But nobody did and instead we got there threw an iterative process where PC manufactures pumped out PC and bought the cheapest chips, while Intel and chip companies integrated the board more and more. I remember learning about Southbridge and Northbridge, and that essentially the design you end up with.

Imagine if you had an Amiga Chipset and you had combined it with a RISC like chip. If you did that in late 70s with 3.5μm HMOS (like 68k). The resulting system would be insane, in terms of performance to cost. You could outperform minicomputers that cost 10-100x more.

The ARM2 like chip and the complete Amiga chipset seem to have less transistors then a single 68k, so the price off such a system would be very low. And we can see that with the Amiga, what really blows my mind is how cheap Amiga ended up being, an unbelievable achievment.

Its seem the issue really was the the companies that had the resources to do that amount of chip design knowlage and finances were not interest in making a home computers/workstation. Workstation ended up being made by startups who didn't have the resources to do so much costume work. Appollo was a split-off group DEC because DEC was not interested in workstations. IBM was just to slow and couldn't really do prodcut design, and we all know how the eventually got around that problem with the PC. Apple for the Mac did try to do one ambitious chip with VSLI but didn't end up using it.

The split between computer companies and chip design company was just to big to get the needed amount of integration, and there was clearly a lacking vision for what home computer could be. Jobs vision for the Macintosh went in the right direction, but really Jay Mine had the right vision, and he had it because he build a computer for himself. He wanted a home comptuer that was fast, had a proper operating system and enough media capability to run a flight simulator software. Sadly manamgent most of the time wanted him to develop a console and later when they allowed a home computer they didn't share his full vision.

But then also actually plulling this vision off, multi-chip costume design with very few resources is just an amazing achievment. And many of the people didn't even have that much knowlage in chip design, there was a lot of competition for chip design people. Getting into Commmodore where they had the actual semiconductor teams to get these designs over the line was lucky, many other companies who could have bought them might have messed this up.

In a perfect world you add ARM2-like RISC chip, a Sun-like costume MMU to something like Amiga Chipset and you move computing forward by 10+ years. In reality the exact opposite won, a 16-bit PC that had basically no costume design in it what so ever.

Sorry that complex government contracts valued at 100s of billions of $ can't be discussed in snarky one-liners and throwing around random judgments based on nothing. You seem like somebody that should be on tiktok, not HN.

You can read the technical selection paper. Both Blue and SpaceX proposal met the minimal requirments, and SpaceX was cheaper by at least 50%. So they won the selection.

And those comments are usually not long or detailed. Almost everybody that actually engadges in the discussion doesn't seem to defend that position.

Tesla stock went to around 200-250$ when they showed substained profit, growth and margin. And since then it has hovered around that number. I don't believe this initial surge was primarly FSD inspired.

FSD was part of it, because from a financial perspective its really pure margin. I believed if they developed a good level 2 system they could improve their per-car profitability by a significant number. I don't think 20-30% uptake was a crazy suggestion, and that would have been fincially significant. I didn't need FSD and all the fancy promises to think it was good financially.

So I think that 200$ mark was optimistic but not totally crazy. People had been saying the stock was overvalued at 50$ when I bought in. So I wanted to hold around that value and just wanted to see what would happen (I had already pulled out enough to cover my investment).

But then the strategy became worse in all aspect and they didn't make progress as fast as possible. The stock did reflect that, not going up anymore.

Where it became truely irrational is in 2024, where it was clear that company was perfomring worse, and many of its strategies hand not worked as well as expected but somehow the stock massively rallied since then and is now at peak.

I'm not sure FSD explains this pattern very well. I think the political angle might matter more. But I really can't explain it at all. So I have long since liquidiated.

And then China does maybe a flags and footprints landing, while shortly after the US has a base there.

The only reason this is even close at all is because the US spend the last 25 years and 200 billion $ in complete deadends.

And just going further into the deadend just to maybe get a set of footprints onto the moon first is shortsighted and frankly morinic strategy.

While on the contrary Boieng and friends try to use old tech they have in their archive to slap togetehr a minimal viable product to meet the requirment.

But the contract structure changes is not about giving contract to SpaceX only. Its about developing a space industry. And this has worked extremely well. Commercial cargo resulted in Falcon 9, Antares rockets. Antares team is now working with the Firefly startup for a next generation rocket. Clearly not as successful as Falcon, but without Falcon on the market it might have delivered differently.

It also produce Cargo Dragon and Cygnus. Both have seen a lot of further development since then and have all kinds of uses.

You can also look at CLIPS for moon landers, where some companies at small budgets have managed to build landers. And even those that weren't successful, training a lot of people on deep space probes.

If you comapre the explosion of the space industry since Commercial Cargo to the stgantion in the Shuttle/Constellation area you will see why many space fans are so in favor of the new model. And the amazing thing is, that a tiny fraction of the money was spent on the non-Shuttle/Constellation/SLS part.

In fact, I did the math and the total spend on just development of Constellation/SLS/Orion is going toward 200 billion $ over the last 25 years. And that is without actually delivering anything meaningful.

In comparison the complete development budget of Commercial Cargo was a few billion $ at most, and it has revolutionized the US space industry. The complete spend on all Commerical Cargo, Commercial Crew and Lunar development more like 20 billion $. And the impact is just hilariously larger.

Seems fairly obious what the way forward is, its just politically not feasable. As long as 50% of NASA discretionary budget is spent on ISS and Shuttle-derived stuff that will never be forward looking, you are playing the game with a hand tied behind your back and cement shoes.

That's wildly optimistic. Falcon 9 launches operationally 100+ a year and single boosters with 20+ uses. Even if in the next 2 years, China has some kind of first stage that lands, its in no way 'like Falcon 9'.

So lets not be unreasonably optimistic just because its China. China isn't magic and they wont have such a rocket no matter if they invest in it or not.

> But someone in the USA? People are delusional.

BlueOrigin is much closer then anybody in China. They have actually attempted launching a large rocket, China has not. And BlueOrigin has made its own advacned reusable engine and flown them to Orbit, argaubly China has not done that.