Jackalope pose a similar problem in the American Southwest, where the Gigafactory is located.
The Gigafactory and its employees can easily survive an onslaught of Jackalope, so I'm pretty sure the drop bears will be familiar, comfortable territory.
I say this, mainly because it's not uncommon for conspiracy theorists to post contents of a bill that never actually passed, or a law that may have been valid decades ago, but is no longer in force.
Remember how that was hyped for months as the evidence that made Trump unelectable?
Actually, no.
If I did ever see it, it was overshadowed by the many other (well documented, provable) reasons various Trump opponents touted as reasons he was unelectable -- and of course defenders of Trump saying those same reasons were strengths.
The piss report (I'm so fraking sick of blank-gate ad nauseum) was, at best, fodder for late-night comedy (which, of course, it was).
ARM was once a simple architecture that was defined in a small pamphlet.
Once people started to use it, its size began to grow. Soon backwards compatibility became a concern, and the specification grew further.
Every successful specification grows to a size the uninitiated consider absurd. Undefined behavior is the enemy, and a good specification needs to define behavior for corner cases that 99.9999% of readers will never think of, let alone see. Once in the spec, they tend to remain there, because somebody is invariably going to depend on that behavior.
Don't get me wrong - I like RISC-V. But don't confuse a current lack of baggage with superiority. The baggage will come.
No ARM device that I know of can run a stock, off-the-shelf Linux distro with a fairly stock kernel.
The Raspberry Pi is one of the more proprietary ones out there, and gets away with being non-standard because the Foundation maintains the fork well enough that few feel any desire to use a standard distribution and kernel (instead opting for NOOBS or Raspbian).
On the other hand, the C.H.I.P. and BeagleBone Black both use standard kernels, and use that fact as a selling point.
In fact, most non-Pi small board computers use standard kernels, because it's the easiest way to support their users.
The age of the x86 family being a dominant platform is waning, as mobile computing continues to eat away its market share. It's not that the PC slice is "shrinking", so much as the rest of the market is growing much faster.
Intel isn't headed by fools, and they are aware that they're missing an opportunity. There's money Intel hasn't been successful in getting. Intel has been trying to enter the low-power, portable, and embedded markets, and has been unsuccessful thus far. They'd love to be the chip of choice for smartphones, for example.
So think of it this way: ARM is able to encroach into a market where Intel dominates, but the reverse is not true, in spite of many attempts.
Failure of imagination is real, and can have life threatening consequences - the Apollo 1 being a prime example.
One of the things young kids teach parents quickly: Kids haven't learned what's not possible, so they try anyway, and often succeed where their parents fail. Locks are a great example of it - kids don't 'know' locks only open if you have a key or combination, so they open the locks without either.
The bottom line is that physical limitations are a constraint, but they're very rarely as much of a limitation as the failure of human imagination.
To elaborate: We can't reliably clock Silicon much faster than we're doing right now.
There are other semiconductors (such as GaAs) which can operate reliably at higher frequencies, but they are absurdly expensive, produce too much heat, consume too much power, and so on -- not to mention the fact our tiny process sizes for silicon don't exactly work for entirely different materials (chemistry bites again).
We're running into a similar wall for die shrinkage, on multiple fronts:
- We're getting into the size territory where bits flip due to quantum tunneling, which tends to hurt reliability. Flash storage has started to reach that territory, if my colleagues working for ${SSD MANUFACTURER} are telling me the truth.
- Yields of working units are going down significantly as the die shrinks, and it's taking a lot longer to figure out how to bring yields back up.
In the end, every material has its limits, and we're starting to run into them with Silicon, and there isn't a material that 'stands out' as worth betting the business on.
Now that we know the superiority of 2.5mm for solving the space issue, I'm sure a company as "courageous" as Apple will fix their mistake and use 2.5mm instead. Right?
You're making one hell of a strawman...
If Apple had switched the 3.5mm audio jack for USB-C, you'd have an argument. But that's not what they did at all.
Apple doesn't use USB-C on its phones, and Apple didn't swap connectors -- their design went from two connectors to one.
It's also good to consider not only the size of the connector, but also the DAC & amplifier circuitry. (Not that the DAC is significant in size).
The simple fact is an awful lot of us went wireless ages ago, so why do we need a jack we don't use?
Apple has a long history of dumping interfaces first, or avoiding technologies it sees as irrelevant - and of being mocked for it:
- Floppy drives
- Adobe Flash
- Blu-Ray, and later optical drives in general
It remains to be seen if dumping brand-specific custom chargers with generic USB-C, and dumping the audio jack will pan out -- but in both cases, Apple isn't the only company doing it.
Dr. Freeman worked in the anomalous materials lab, and his team was given a sample of "stuff" and had to figure out what it was based on its observable properties.
This is the opposite case: the material's identity is known, but its properties are not.
Therein lies the rub of anomalous materials: you don't know if the anomalous material will do something unfriendly like detonate when any given test is performed.
Hence, the hazardous environment suit and heavily armored chamber deep underground in an unpopulated desert.
I'm hopeful that AMD will be able to press this new design into better performance than Intel can manage with their current technology at this price point.
Your optimism is cute, but unwarranted. AMD won't really be a threat until they can easily beat Intel at every performance level, price be damned.
Intel has no problem dropping prices to match the price/performance of anything AMD does. Inel is able to demand the prices they currently do because of AMD's decade-long streak of incompetence. Intel knows they can charge more because AMD isn't a threat.
If you want to know what Intel does consider a threat, you have to look at the ARM architecture (and ecosystem). Granted, ARM isn't a single company, but that's part of Intel's problem: Competing with ARM is fighting a Hydra - one company's failure doesn't really affect the ecosystem much, and the combined might of all of the ARM licensees ensures its viability.
ARM has almost perfect dominance for everything mobile and embedded - a market Intel has been trying desperately to enter, with zero success.
You're saying a comparison to a CPU core nearly a year older is a fair comparison?
The story hasn't changed in nearly a decade: AMD boasts they have "massive" performance gains over their old hardware, and that they can selectively beat Intel's old hardware.
The problem is that Intel invariably has its own improvements, and they easily beat AMD's best-case hype.
I really would like to see AMD return to beating Intel's chips, but this doesn't leave me hopeful.
TFA reads like a classic example of "User refuses to learn to use screwdriver, complains all fasteners are hard to use."
* Author seems to think encryption is a simple magic bullet. * Author doesn't even bother reading the manual for the tool. * Author reviews only one tool in a large family of tools, blames the entire family of tools for his own ignorance and incompetence. * Author doesn't know about the problem space, has expectations that reveal a tragic level of misunderstanding.
The bottom line is encryption is easy.... authenticity is not.
Without authenticity, encryption isn't terribly useful.
Authentication isn't a problem that's been remotely solved. If you have a better idea than the following two, you're going to make a fortune:
- A web of trust requires real effort on the part of the user to work - you have to attend a few keysigning parties for it to work. Even then, can you really trust a web of trust? - A trusted third party model assumes a third party is actually trustworthy -- which experience has shown isn't really the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we all love our dancing watts.
Jackalope pose a similar problem in the American Southwest, where the Gigafactory is located.
The Gigafactory and its employees can easily survive an onslaught of Jackalope, so I'm pretty sure the drop bears will be familiar, comfortable territory.
I'm careful to about how I judge other's really boring hobbies... after all, I get jazzed about getting my clock 10 microseconds more accurate.
And, as we all know, politicians become addicted to power quickly.
Given the distance involved and the size of the sattelites, this is some pretty impressive work.
You seriously want to collect anything that drips out of Trump tower?
So... how about a link to the actual document?
I say this, mainly because it's not uncommon for conspiracy theorists to post contents of a bill that never actually passed, or a law that may have been valid decades ago, but is no longer in force.
Remember how that was hyped for months as the evidence that made Trump unelectable?
Actually, no.
If I did ever see it, it was overshadowed by the many other (well documented, provable) reasons various Trump opponents touted as reasons he was unelectable -- and of course defenders of Trump saying those same reasons were strengths.
The piss report (I'm so fraking sick of blank-gate ad nauseum) was, at best, fodder for late-night comedy (which, of course, it was).
ARM was once a simple architecture that was defined in a small pamphlet.
Once people started to use it, its size began to grow. Soon backwards compatibility became a concern, and the specification grew further.
Every successful specification grows to a size the uninitiated consider absurd. Undefined behavior is the enemy, and a good specification needs to define behavior for corner cases that 99.9999% of readers will never think of, let alone see. Once in the spec, they tend to remain there, because somebody is invariably going to depend on that behavior.
Don't get me wrong - I like RISC-V. But don't confuse a current lack of baggage with superiority. The baggage will come.
No ARM device that I know of can run a stock, off-the-shelf Linux distro with a fairly stock kernel.
The Raspberry Pi is one of the more proprietary ones out there, and gets away with being non-standard because the Foundation maintains the fork well enough that few feel any desire to use a standard distribution and kernel (instead opting for NOOBS or Raspbian).
On the other hand, the C.H.I.P. and BeagleBone Black both use standard kernels, and use that fact as a selling point.
In fact, most non-Pi small board computers use standard kernels, because it's the easiest way to support their users.
Let's look at this slightly differently:
The age of the x86 family being a dominant platform is waning, as mobile computing continues to eat away its market share. It's not that the PC slice is "shrinking", so much as the rest of the market is growing much faster.
Intel isn't headed by fools, and they are aware that they're missing an opportunity. There's money Intel hasn't been successful in getting. Intel has been trying to enter the low-power, portable, and embedded markets, and has been unsuccessful thus far. They'd love to be the chip of choice for smartphones, for example.
So think of it this way: ARM is able to encroach into a market where Intel dominates, but the reverse is not true, in spite of many attempts.
We're talking about IBM. Look elsewhere for pretty boxes.
Failure of imagination is real, and can have life threatening consequences - the Apollo 1 being a prime example.
One of the things young kids teach parents quickly: Kids haven't learned what's not possible, so they try anyway, and often succeed where their parents fail. Locks are a great example of it - kids don't 'know' locks only open if you have a key or combination, so they open the locks without either.
The bottom line is that physical limitations are a constraint, but they're very rarely as much of a limitation as the failure of human imagination.
I'd mod you up if I could... at this point, it's starting to look like we need a material breakthrough - Silicon appears to be reaching its limits.
To elaborate: We can't reliably clock Silicon much faster than we're doing right now.
There are other semiconductors (such as GaAs) which can operate reliably at higher frequencies, but they are absurdly expensive, produce too much heat, consume too much power, and so on -- not to mention the fact our tiny process sizes for silicon don't exactly work for entirely different materials (chemistry bites again).
We're running into a similar wall for die shrinkage, on multiple fronts:
- We're getting into the size territory where bits flip due to quantum tunneling, which tends to hurt reliability. Flash storage has started to reach that territory, if my colleagues working for ${SSD MANUFACTURER} are telling me the truth.
- Yields of working units are going down significantly as the die shrinks, and it's taking a lot longer to figure out how to bring yields back up.
In the end, every material has its limits, and we're starting to run into them with Silicon, and there isn't a material that 'stands out' as worth betting the business on.
Physics
Um... replacing the battery on iPhones typically only requires three screwdrivers, and tweezers.
Apple charges $100 to replace the battery - and there's a skilled technician to do the job, and it doesn't void warranties.
The DIY route is about $50, may void your warranty, requires some basic skills and care.
The extra $50 isn't exactly unreasonable for people who don't feel comfortable changing their battery; skilled labor isn't cheap.
Now that we know the superiority of 2.5mm for solving the space issue, I'm sure a company as "courageous" as Apple will fix their mistake and use 2.5mm instead. Right?
You're making one hell of a strawman...
If Apple had switched the 3.5mm audio jack for USB-C, you'd have an argument. But that's not what they did at all.
Apple doesn't use USB-C on its phones, and Apple didn't swap connectors -- their design went from two connectors to one.
It's also good to consider not only the size of the connector, but also the DAC & amplifier circuitry. (Not that the DAC is significant in size).
The simple fact is an awful lot of us went wireless ages ago, so why do we need a jack we don't use?
Apple has a long history of dumping interfaces first, or avoiding technologies it sees as irrelevant - and of being mocked for it:
It remains to be seen if dumping brand-specific custom chargers with generic USB-C, and dumping the audio jack will pan out -- but in both cases, Apple isn't the only company doing it.
Dr. Freeman worked in the anomalous materials lab, and his team was given a sample of "stuff" and had to figure out what it was based on its observable properties.
This is the opposite case: the material's identity is known, but its properties are not.
Therein lies the rub of anomalous materials: you don't know if the anomalous material will do something unfriendly like detonate when any given test is performed.
Hence, the hazardous environment suit and heavily armored chamber deep underground in an unpopulated desert.
I'm hopeful that AMD will be able to press this new design into better performance than Intel can manage with their current technology at this price point.
Your optimism is cute, but unwarranted. AMD won't really be a threat until they can easily beat Intel at every performance level, price be damned.
Intel has no problem dropping prices to match the price/performance of anything AMD does. Inel is able to demand the prices they currently do because of AMD's decade-long streak of incompetence. Intel knows they can charge more because AMD isn't a threat.
If you want to know what Intel does consider a threat, you have to look at the ARM architecture (and ecosystem). Granted, ARM isn't a single company, but that's part of Intel's problem: Competing with ARM is fighting a Hydra - one company's failure doesn't really affect the ecosystem much, and the combined might of all of the ARM licensees ensures its viability.
ARM has almost perfect dominance for everything mobile and embedded - a market Intel has been trying desperately to enter, with zero success.
You're saying a comparison to a CPU core nearly a year older is a fair comparison?
The story hasn't changed in nearly a decade: AMD boasts they have "massive" performance gains over their old hardware, and that they can selectively beat Intel's old hardware.
The problem is that Intel invariably has its own improvements, and they easily beat AMD's best-case hype.
I really would like to see AMD return to beating Intel's chips, but this doesn't leave me hopeful.
And of course the comparison is a paper launch from AMD vs a shipping processor from Intel.
Intel MIC architecture (Xeon Phi) is probably the closest at 72 Xeon cores (and 4 threads/core).
Have you ever expected less than stupid from an AC?
TFA reads like a classic example of "User refuses to learn to use screwdriver, complains all fasteners are hard to use."
* Author seems to think encryption is a simple magic bullet.
* Author doesn't even bother reading the manual for the tool.
* Author reviews only one tool in a large family of tools, blames the entire family of tools for his own ignorance and incompetence.
* Author doesn't know about the problem space, has expectations that reveal a tragic level of misunderstanding.
The bottom line is encryption is easy.... authenticity is not.
Without authenticity, encryption isn't terribly useful.
Authentication isn't a problem that's been remotely solved. If you have a better idea than the following two, you're going to make a fortune:
- A web of trust requires real effort on the part of the user to work - you have to attend a few keysigning parties for it to work. Even then, can you really trust a web of trust?
- A trusted third party model assumes a third party is actually trustworthy -- which experience has shown isn't really the case.