Bitcoin has a hard limit of 2022-2024 after which the protocol can't be hacked to be safe vs quantum computers. The issue is that post-quantum signature schemes require a switch to them BEFORE the first quantum computer capable of Shor's algorithm comes out around that time. That switch has to be initiated by every wallet holder with any coins - and the smallest sizes for public key and signature combinations for that first transaction come in around 35KB combined. There are currently just under 25 million Bitcoin wallets in use and that number has grown exponentially year-over-year (in part as the necessity to do so to maintain some semblance of anonymity, so that's likely not going to change.) That means just that initial change without adjustment for the numbers of wallets in the next few years (just what currently exists) will be a blockchain 875 GB in size - just for the cutover, no actual transactions. Now add in the next 4 years of wallet count growth (on the low end,) and you get a hair under 13.5 TB for the actual cutover. Now consider that public key is the SMALL PART in every post-quantum signature scheme - every single signature requires about 30KB in addition to the data you're signing, which is trivial in comparison, so let's just call it 30KB/transaction. We're at about 150k transactions/DAY right now (after the introduction of the lightning network, before that it was about 350k/day and due to limitations of post-quantum protocols you can't make it fit a similar scheme to the lightning network - but Hell, let's be super liberal and pretend some miracles happen to keep the transaction count no higher than 150k/day and counting at that minimal growth rate previously defined.) That means by 2022 we're looking at an additional 72 GB/DAY in transactional data at the baseline - or an additional 26.3 TB/year of added transactions that first year post-cutover. That means every single user who wants to verify a transaction is secure requires at a bare minimum needs 39.8 TB to make it through the first year in addition to the current measly 173 GB size. Now take in a more realistic account by dropping the lightning network functionality and you're looking at 168 GB/DAY or 61.4 TB/year additional data.
The short of all this: Bitcoin has 4 years left before it is entirely worthless, 7 at the outset.
A software compiler translates abstract ideas which have been carefully fine-tuned by hand into machine code of a VERY simple kind - based on the spec of the chip it is written for. Both systems are arbitrarily complex, the differences are primarily that the software developer can "debug" without blowing tens of millions of dollars each time they press the button (try writing a complex million-line system without hitting the debug button until it's "done" - then catching every error you can and doing it again as few times as possible - to the point of taking months between each debug session just to check the data you got from the last one.) Your comment is a joke.
No, as in even if you know every aspect of the system from staying current to bleeding edge transistor designs to the logical arrangements of them into cores to the wiring of those cores to the inductive effects between transistors and traces to the other thousand issues which all require special expertise in - you wouldn't live long enough to write it all if you were in the flow state 24/7, started coding on it with expert level knowledge when you were born and lived to 150 years old doing nothing else the entire time. To put this in perspective FPGA cores tend to number in the dozens of gigabytes for a workable implementation - basically a bunch of bitmaps describing the state of flipflops and which of a limited number of neighbor flipflops to connect them to. Actual chip design is billions of times more complex than FPGA design because you're talking about implementing actual transistors and dealing with dead sections of the chip as a matter-of-fact-will-happen-randomly variable and all the other issues described. Look at it this way: what's going to be harder? Drawing a glyph of a house with zero actual spec requirements in MS Paint or etching a photorealistic image of one atom-by-atom into a grain of sand, by hand? That's the equivalent of software vs hardware, the difference is so vast it is absurd to suggest hardware design is anything like software design.
Wrong, the trouble is the task really does require a plethora of geniuses. A genius doesn't live long enough to complete it themselves, and doesn't work fast enough to stay current with technology even if they did live long enough to implement a version compatible with today's hardware designs.
How much of that $500m is legit R&D, and how much is marketing, and how much is payments to partners to use it? How much of it is bogus expenses designed to avoid taxes, and how much of it is actual cash money that walked out the door?
99% of it goes into making masks, configuring equipment, and testing out new designs, so basically all of it. Any kind of development takes iteration to achieve - think of if you had to pay several million dollars every time you hit the debug button on visual studio. That's the equivalent of chip R&D. It takes months of engineers working to craft and machine simple things like masks - on average a mask alone runs a million dollars due to the failure rates in making them and the labor required to do so, and it takes several for the different layers of a chip. Once you've shelled out 10-20m you then have to spend another few million on configuring the equipment to use it and materials which get scrapped in all your calibration fuckups. When all is said and done you're at about 25-30m when you try to debug it. They certainly try to cut costs and find all the possible bugs in that singular debug session, but it doesn't happen, so 4 iterations later if you're lucky you have a new chip at 100m. I'm not actually sure this project will do much if anything to help since the bulk of the cost is in making the things to make the chips (masks, etc) but it seems interesting.
Actually, I've got a ~$20 FPGA dev board on my desk right now, and it isn't going to take me $500m to write a little verilog.;)
Compilers are hard, but still, they're generally written by a very small software team. The hardware team would not be bigger, if anything it would be smaller.
Do you know how that FPGA compiler works? Chances are it's made by 1 of two companies (the open source cores for FPGAs are terrible) and you've likely noticed it takes around a dozen gigabytes to install the compiler. Now consider that only does arrangements of flip flops and not actual hardware design. Hardware design is like a 2D (and for chips of any complexity, 3D) version of tetris-like compilation. You not only have to compile things in sequence, you also have to make sure they work in parallel and FIT onto a constrained space in the most efficient manner - AND they have to do so without doing things like creating inductive effects which make bits tunnel to the wrong channel of a bus or otherwise screw up calculations - AND you have to take into account heat dissipation - AND you have to take into account the limited external IO pins - AND you have to take into account the limited internal IO pins between those tetris-like blocks - AND you have to take into account changing hardware (how long until you have to scrap the whole compiler and start over because your transistor dimensions changed? 6 months?)
This isn't software design, software is super fucking easy compared to hardware (hint: FPGAs are still effectively software.)
I don't think you actually understand how difficult a "silicon compiler" would be to produce. Even relatively known things like FPGA compilers are absurdly complex and rely 99% on arranging tetris block like configurations of flip flops in the tightest configuration possible to avoid wasting space for the given design (and take obscene amounts of time to do so.) Now imagine designing those tetris blocks from the ground up, with variable transistor sizes as tech and manufacturing needs dictate, and breaking the whole thing down at the end into the CNC files to machine out the masks with metadata for the exposure times and it gets mind bogglingly complex. No one guy has a design for even one of those things that is close to comprehensive, let alone all of them. You're talking about things which even broken into their base components would take the life work of several dozen geniuses to achieve if they were in the flow state their entire lives and experts at the specific things they were working on at every level - scale that out to a manageable software development team on a time limit as aggressive as this and 100m is an absolute bargain.
They're under the mistaken impression that they have market dominance and can steer where things go - so they feel capable of disregarding user opinions on things under the assumption "they'll use what they're given." Combine that with the notion that they missed out on the web and never really had a product to begin with (they've always been a shop that muscles or buys out competition with an internal team of developers barely sufficient to stitch together a bunch of disparate code they've acquired - which really puts the GitHub acquisition into perspective if you stop to think about it,) and you end up with a push toward the cloud and getting in on this sweet user data collection industry - especially since the desktop operating system they produced effectively became feature-complete at Windows 7 and they need to get people onto subscriptions to keep any revenue whatsoever flowing in. In all honesty the way things are going once Linux starts seriously (not Ubuntu) catering to desktop users and puts out a development suite comparable to Visual Studio in ease of use they will have actual problems (the one thing they've gotten dead-right over the years is "developers developers developers" - they make shit but they cater to developers so they effectively mastered crowdsourcing before anyone else and locked people in with a community of strong applications which far outstrip any other platform for desktop users in personal or business settings.) Moral of the story: of course they want cheap incompetent H1b's - they have entire buildings full of lawyers, they aren't a software company, they're a sales/marketing/rebranding/M&A company which targets the software industry - they need the bare minimum competency to spaghetti shit together without their developers reaching a point in competency where they become mission critical and start demanding raises.
My new roommate that moved here less than three months ago is probably going to be laid-off since his team is moving to their new building in Dublin, Ireland. Microsoft paid him about $10k in moving expenses. That's incredibly inefficient to go to the hassle of interviewing people and flying them in for interviews plus to pay relocation expenses for the five people they recently hired.
From the same company who fired their entire Denmark division of Nokia because they were "too white?" The real news in your post seems to be that Microsoft is fleeing the country to dodge taxes.
If you don't regularly mock your clients then your clients hired the wrong person. You're supposed to hire people significantly better than you to do things for you, not your equals.
I'd prefer a window manager which functions like visual studio to anything else. Automatic docking in arbitrary locations would save so much space and time, and eliminate the need for the taskbar entirely.
We have the tech right now to make cheap abundant electricity from Nickel ribbons held in high pressure hydrogen environments shot with THz radiation via a device almost identical to a LASER diode array (e.g. same thing with different well sizes.) This has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to work by NASA studies (see: nickel-metal-hydride-low-energy-nuclear-fusion-reactions.) Similarly there have been developments in the realm of electrodynamics repeatedly squashed over the years with everything from assassinations to people like Hutchinson who just got MK Ultra'd into thinking he was a woman or Dollard who was turned into a meth head. To suggest there isn't an active force at work keeping people away from non-computing research in physics is really quite nuts - this doesn't come down to a money/funding issue because many of people who make headway on a budget either disappear or otherwise become pacified.
Bet you're starting to understand now why the Illuminati allows computer science to move forward but put the breaks on all physics developments attainable without a multi billion dollar particle accelerator.
When spyware makers don't put security in their systems such that they can't be held responsible for being the only party capable of selling user information. They deserve what they get for using the devices.
If you're putting in 80 hours a week you need about 100k just to cover living expenses which arise from lack of down time (another 100k if you count the inevitable medical expenses.)
What he's describing is something many people benefit from. Just because corporations are the standard way of receiving compensation for work done doesn't make them the only way, or even something remotely fair to the people doing the work. In fact, the only thing corporations really have going for them is their own stability in the modern economic environment, they are often slow to innovate (not as bad as educational institutes, but not that far ahead either,) resistant to change/adaptation, and most importantly not all developments which are good for people or even desired by people can be directly translated into a corporate pathway to profit/subsidence. The development of corporations tends to follow a pathway more akin to evolution than anything else, which necessarily has dead ends and lots of branches you can't even get to from a given starting point. I'm not suggesting that capitalism and corporations aren't the best thing we know of, because they are, but it's pretty foolish to not even acknowledge the issues they have because if we all do that then it just means nothing better will ever come about.
This conversation has diverged significantly from the substance of the post you had originally responded to. How someone spends their resources is irrelevant, the resources they get should be comparable to the job done.
What most of the world does is irrelevant, besides which he has kids which suggests it could be for them. If you do quality work you deserve a quality lifestyle, just because you find something you enjoy doing doesn't negate that.
Depends where you live. In rural areas more than 100k is essentially free of any financial burden - in cities it might well take 300k to break even on bills.
Are you kidding? Dairy isn't exactly a luxary - eating healthy isn't something you should expect people to give up to have the privilege of spending their lives writing free shit for you. Hell, if he takes his family out to eat 7 days a week at a nice restaurant it still wouldn't be out of line with the level of work he's doing. "Open source" isn't supposed to translate to "slave labor." People should be rewarded for pursuing their passions when those passions benefit others - God knows one guy in a perpetual flow state is far more productive than a hundred code monkeys paid to do the same thing.
It's the institutional stuff. People who could only program in Java rightfully couldn't get work, so they taught CS courses. Now people with only CS training and no actual experience tend to love Java because it's a bit more usable than c/c++ (the only things they know.) In turn major industries with no actual business drive (e.g. utilities mostly) run on Java and consider things like.NET "deprecated" because of the legit claim of "evil Microsoft" being just enough to get their incompetent CS hires the ammo they need to make the claim, and deride non-CS majors (e.g. those that don't waste time with Java) as unskilled as some form of retribution for their own inability to learn new things.
Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin has a hard limit of 2022-2024 after which the protocol can't be hacked to be safe vs quantum computers. The issue is that post-quantum signature schemes require a switch to them BEFORE the first quantum computer capable of Shor's algorithm comes out around that time. That switch has to be initiated by every wallet holder with any coins - and the smallest sizes for public key and signature combinations for that first transaction come in around 35KB combined. There are currently just under 25 million Bitcoin wallets in use and that number has grown exponentially year-over-year (in part as the necessity to do so to maintain some semblance of anonymity, so that's likely not going to change.) That means just that initial change without adjustment for the numbers of wallets in the next few years (just what currently exists) will be a blockchain 875 GB in size - just for the cutover, no actual transactions. Now add in the next 4 years of wallet count growth (on the low end,) and you get a hair under 13.5 TB for the actual cutover. Now consider that public key is the SMALL PART in every post-quantum signature scheme - every single signature requires about 30KB in addition to the data you're signing, which is trivial in comparison, so let's just call it 30KB/transaction. We're at about 150k transactions/DAY right now (after the introduction of the lightning network, before that it was about 350k/day and due to limitations of post-quantum protocols you can't make it fit a similar scheme to the lightning network - but Hell, let's be super liberal and pretend some miracles happen to keep the transaction count no higher than 150k/day and counting at that minimal growth rate previously defined.) That means by 2022 we're looking at an additional 72 GB/DAY in transactional data at the baseline - or an additional 26.3 TB/year of added transactions that first year post-cutover. That means every single user who wants to verify a transaction is secure requires at a bare minimum needs 39.8 TB to make it through the first year in addition to the current measly 173 GB size. Now take in a more realistic account by dropping the lightning network functionality and you're looking at 168 GB/DAY or 61.4 TB/year additional data.
The short of all this: Bitcoin has 4 years left before it is entirely worthless, 7 at the outset.
Have you considered just dressing in drag in the shady part of town with a sign hung around your neck saying "free lube provided?"
A software compiler translates abstract ideas which have been carefully fine-tuned by hand into machine code of a VERY simple kind - based on the spec of the chip it is written for. Both systems are arbitrarily complex, the differences are primarily that the software developer can "debug" without blowing tens of millions of dollars each time they press the button (try writing a complex million-line system without hitting the debug button until it's "done" - then catching every error you can and doing it again as few times as possible - to the point of taking months between each debug session just to check the data you got from the last one.) Your comment is a joke.
No, as in even if you know every aspect of the system from staying current to bleeding edge transistor designs to the logical arrangements of them into cores to the wiring of those cores to the inductive effects between transistors and traces to the other thousand issues which all require special expertise in - you wouldn't live long enough to write it all if you were in the flow state 24/7, started coding on it with expert level knowledge when you were born and lived to 150 years old doing nothing else the entire time. To put this in perspective FPGA cores tend to number in the dozens of gigabytes for a workable implementation - basically a bunch of bitmaps describing the state of flipflops and which of a limited number of neighbor flipflops to connect them to. Actual chip design is billions of times more complex than FPGA design because you're talking about implementing actual transistors and dealing with dead sections of the chip as a matter-of-fact-will-happen-randomly variable and all the other issues described. Look at it this way: what's going to be harder? Drawing a glyph of a house with zero actual spec requirements in MS Paint or etching a photorealistic image of one atom-by-atom into a grain of sand, by hand? That's the equivalent of software vs hardware, the difference is so vast it is absurd to suggest hardware design is anything like software design.
Wrong, the trouble is the task really does require a plethora of geniuses. A genius doesn't live long enough to complete it themselves, and doesn't work fast enough to stay current with technology even if they did live long enough to implement a version compatible with today's hardware designs.
How much of that $500m is legit R&D, and how much is marketing, and how much is payments to partners to use it? How much of it is bogus expenses designed to avoid taxes, and how much of it is actual cash money that walked out the door?
99% of it goes into making masks, configuring equipment, and testing out new designs, so basically all of it. Any kind of development takes iteration to achieve - think of if you had to pay several million dollars every time you hit the debug button on visual studio. That's the equivalent of chip R&D. It takes months of engineers working to craft and machine simple things like masks - on average a mask alone runs a million dollars due to the failure rates in making them and the labor required to do so, and it takes several for the different layers of a chip. Once you've shelled out 10-20m you then have to spend another few million on configuring the equipment to use it and materials which get scrapped in all your calibration fuckups. When all is said and done you're at about 25-30m when you try to debug it. They certainly try to cut costs and find all the possible bugs in that singular debug session, but it doesn't happen, so 4 iterations later if you're lucky you have a new chip at 100m. I'm not actually sure this project will do much if anything to help since the bulk of the cost is in making the things to make the chips (masks, etc) but it seems interesting.
Actually, I've got a ~$20 FPGA dev board on my desk right now, and it isn't going to take me $500m to write a little verilog. ;)
Compilers are hard, but still, they're generally written by a very small software team. The hardware team would not be bigger, if anything it would be smaller.
Do you know how that FPGA compiler works? Chances are it's made by 1 of two companies (the open source cores for FPGAs are terrible) and you've likely noticed it takes around a dozen gigabytes to install the compiler. Now consider that only does arrangements of flip flops and not actual hardware design. Hardware design is like a 2D (and for chips of any complexity, 3D) version of tetris-like compilation. You not only have to compile things in sequence, you also have to make sure they work in parallel and FIT onto a constrained space in the most efficient manner - AND they have to do so without doing things like creating inductive effects which make bits tunnel to the wrong channel of a bus or otherwise screw up calculations - AND you have to take into account heat dissipation - AND you have to take into account the limited external IO pins - AND you have to take into account the limited internal IO pins between those tetris-like blocks - AND you have to take into account changing hardware (how long until you have to scrap the whole compiler and start over because your transistor dimensions changed? 6 months?)
This isn't software design, software is super fucking easy compared to hardware (hint: FPGAs are still effectively software.)
I don't think you actually understand how difficult a "silicon compiler" would be to produce. Even relatively known things like FPGA compilers are absurdly complex and rely 99% on arranging tetris block like configurations of flip flops in the tightest configuration possible to avoid wasting space for the given design (and take obscene amounts of time to do so.) Now imagine designing those tetris blocks from the ground up, with variable transistor sizes as tech and manufacturing needs dictate, and breaking the whole thing down at the end into the CNC files to machine out the masks with metadata for the exposure times and it gets mind bogglingly complex. No one guy has a design for even one of those things that is close to comprehensive, let alone all of them. You're talking about things which even broken into their base components would take the life work of several dozen geniuses to achieve if they were in the flow state their entire lives and experts at the specific things they were working on at every level - scale that out to a manageable software development team on a time limit as aggressive as this and 100m is an absolute bargain.
They're under the mistaken impression that they have market dominance and can steer where things go - so they feel capable of disregarding user opinions on things under the assumption "they'll use what they're given." Combine that with the notion that they missed out on the web and never really had a product to begin with (they've always been a shop that muscles or buys out competition with an internal team of developers barely sufficient to stitch together a bunch of disparate code they've acquired - which really puts the GitHub acquisition into perspective if you stop to think about it,) and you end up with a push toward the cloud and getting in on this sweet user data collection industry - especially since the desktop operating system they produced effectively became feature-complete at Windows 7 and they need to get people onto subscriptions to keep any revenue whatsoever flowing in. In all honesty the way things are going once Linux starts seriously (not Ubuntu) catering to desktop users and puts out a development suite comparable to Visual Studio in ease of use they will have actual problems (the one thing they've gotten dead-right over the years is "developers developers developers" - they make shit but they cater to developers so they effectively mastered crowdsourcing before anyone else and locked people in with a community of strong applications which far outstrip any other platform for desktop users in personal or business settings.) Moral of the story: of course they want cheap incompetent H1b's - they have entire buildings full of lawyers, they aren't a software company, they're a sales/marketing/rebranding/M&A company which targets the software industry - they need the bare minimum competency to spaghetti shit together without their developers reaching a point in competency where they become mission critical and start demanding raises.
I look forward to the expanded remastered pre-sequel-prequil of Earth Final Conflict, with robots.
My new roommate that moved here less than three months ago is probably going to be laid-off since his team is moving to their new building in Dublin, Ireland. Microsoft paid him about $10k in moving expenses. That's incredibly inefficient to go to the hassle of interviewing people and flying them in for interviews plus to pay relocation expenses for the five people they recently hired.
From the same company who fired their entire Denmark division of Nokia because they were "too white?" The real news in your post seems to be that Microsoft is fleeing the country to dodge taxes.
If you don't regularly mock your clients then your clients hired the wrong person. You're supposed to hire people significantly better than you to do things for you, not your equals.
I'd prefer a window manager which functions like visual studio to anything else. Automatic docking in arbitrary locations would save so much space and time, and eliminate the need for the taskbar entirely.
But then how would Bezos manage to personally ass-floss every pillowcase they sell?
Of course it's not going to be actual profit - if Bezos could turn a 30-fold profit on this he'd be launching the delivery company himself.
It remains to be seen who will bear the brunt of it.
It doesn't remain to be seen. It will be your mom, just like every other night.
We have the tech right now to make cheap abundant electricity from Nickel ribbons held in high pressure hydrogen environments shot with THz radiation via a device almost identical to a LASER diode array (e.g. same thing with different well sizes.) This has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to work by NASA studies (see: nickel-metal-hydride-low-energy-nuclear-fusion-reactions.) Similarly there have been developments in the realm of electrodynamics repeatedly squashed over the years with everything from assassinations to people like Hutchinson who just got MK Ultra'd into thinking he was a woman or Dollard who was turned into a meth head. To suggest there isn't an active force at work keeping people away from non-computing research in physics is really quite nuts - this doesn't come down to a money/funding issue because many of people who make headway on a budget either disappear or otherwise become pacified.
Bet you're starting to understand now why the Illuminati allows computer science to move forward but put the breaks on all physics developments attainable without a multi billion dollar particle accelerator.
When spyware makers don't put security in their systems such that they can't be held responsible for being the only party capable of selling user information. They deserve what they get for using the devices.
If you're putting in 80 hours a week you need about 100k just to cover living expenses which arise from lack of down time (another 100k if you count the inevitable medical expenses.)
What he's describing is something many people benefit from. Just because corporations are the standard way of receiving compensation for work done doesn't make them the only way, or even something remotely fair to the people doing the work. In fact, the only thing corporations really have going for them is their own stability in the modern economic environment, they are often slow to innovate (not as bad as educational institutes, but not that far ahead either,) resistant to change/adaptation, and most importantly not all developments which are good for people or even desired by people can be directly translated into a corporate pathway to profit/subsidence. The development of corporations tends to follow a pathway more akin to evolution than anything else, which necessarily has dead ends and lots of branches you can't even get to from a given starting point. I'm not suggesting that capitalism and corporations aren't the best thing we know of, because they are, but it's pretty foolish to not even acknowledge the issues they have because if we all do that then it just means nothing better will ever come about.
This conversation has diverged significantly from the substance of the post you had originally responded to. How someone spends their resources is irrelevant, the resources they get should be comparable to the job done.
What most of the world does is irrelevant, besides which he has kids which suggests it could be for them. If you do quality work you deserve a quality lifestyle, just because you find something you enjoy doing doesn't negate that.
Depends where you live. In rural areas more than 100k is essentially free of any financial burden - in cities it might well take 300k to break even on bills.
Are you kidding? Dairy isn't exactly a luxary - eating healthy isn't something you should expect people to give up to have the privilege of spending their lives writing free shit for you. Hell, if he takes his family out to eat 7 days a week at a nice restaurant it still wouldn't be out of line with the level of work he's doing. "Open source" isn't supposed to translate to "slave labor." People should be rewarded for pursuing their passions when those passions benefit others - God knows one guy in a perpetual flow state is far more productive than a hundred code monkeys paid to do the same thing.
It's the institutional stuff. People who could only program in Java rightfully couldn't get work, so they taught CS courses. Now people with only CS training and no actual experience tend to love Java because it's a bit more usable than c/c++ (the only things they know.) In turn major industries with no actual business drive (e.g. utilities mostly) run on Java and consider things like .NET "deprecated" because of the legit claim of "evil Microsoft" being just enough to get their incompetent CS hires the ammo they need to make the claim, and deride non-CS majors (e.g. those that don't waste time with Java) as unskilled as some form of retribution for their own inability to learn new things.