>Beyond redundancy, one neat thing about engine clusters is that you can create a virtual aerospike effect to some degree.
Not exclusively with really a lot of engines. More smaller nozzles need less length to fully expand the exhaust. And such effect is becoming noticeable even with 2 nozzles.
BTW, with all that AI research bandoozle going within Baidu, they can't even beat Google search accuracy from 10 years ago...
I doubt they will ever improve, no matter how much Ivy league grads they hire, unless they disadopt that cargo-cultish view of the industry they got from the Silicon Valley.
The few SV companies that do perform well, do so exactly because they refuse to go along the local koolaid culture
Because of no competition, there are Chinese EVs that do beat Teslas on individual metrics, but yet to beat them on overall performance. When they will do, prepare for pricefall.
Leaf used manganese cathode pouch cells with a lot of organics inside, those were not much different from ones stuffed into thin laptops these days. The do degrade and go boom from heat. Phosphate/graphite cells on the other hand can be heated red hot, without going unto thermal runaway.
I mean, Chinese use cheap and simple air cooling, while Tesla has to do forced liquid cooling which is whack a lot more expensive. They have to do this because they use cylindrical cells with tiny internal conductors and very energetic chemistry that is thermal runaway prone.
With brick cells where the membrane zigzags through the cell, the penalty for using thicker contact plates for anode and cathode is not as big as for cylindrical cells where you are forced to use copper foil of equivalent area to anode and cathode simply by the geometry, and need to have enough space left to accommodate for swelling.
About bigger cells requiring more or less cooling, the matter is not about that, but more about the chemistry used. Chinese use phosphate cathodes, that are more chemically stable than manganese or cobalt, and higher current limiting characteristic (no runaway), and thus they can run them hotter, despite them having lower surface area to volume ratio. There are other subtle moments there.
And finally about battery life: Tesla gets more battery life by simply using patently huge batteries that are extensively balanced and conditioned through the lifetime. They do not fully charge or discharge the pack, and to accommodate that they have to put a lot more extra cells.
Chinese have smaller, and much lighter packs that can be charged and discharged near completely without cell lifetime reduction. Smaller battery pack is faster to charge, and when it comes to replacement, it is cheaper to replace. And we should mention that they are much lighter, Chinese make their EVs from steel, and steel manage to come out being lighter than aluminium Teslas.
Not so short term I'll say as somebody with some background in the issue.
Tesla uses many small cells that all require a lot of cooling, weight a lot, cost a lot, and require expensive load balancing circuits.
With them making them just a bit bigger, and getting miniscule cell count reduction, just makes the issue a bit smaller, while bringing up new ones: need for custom tooling, being denied advantage of COTS technology, impossibility of buying cells on open market if your own assembly line goes belly up for some reason, bigger cells have higher risk of overheating, bigger cells will require more cooling, if the cell goes boom, the boom will be bigger, necessitating more massive containment structures.
Compare it with Chinese cars with huge brick cells. They have 12 to 64 of them per car. They are air cooled. They use plastic casing. They have bigger internal conductors that use copper, that have low ohmic heating. Lower cell count makes cell balancing easier and more efficient. While the cell chemistry Chinese use is less energetic, they do get MUCH better energy density because they are bigger. Because they use less energetic chemistry, cells are less likely to go boom by themselves. Because they use bigger , flexible cathodes, cathode swelling is much less of an issue. Lower cathode swelling, greatly extends the cell lifetime.
Another thing: dual core apollo lake soc are usually beat quad core models in benchmarks despite having double the cores and more cache. N4200 are less performant than low end models...
It might be a surprise to some, but Apollo lake and ULP cores are priced nearly similarly in China to wholesale buyers around 120 to 170 usd for whole chipset
>is hard to believe they ignored the risky aspects. I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk
The specific issue that Pentium line CPUs: a) do privilege check asynchronously; b) do it only for the "winning" execution branch was very well known among CPU design community.
Intel architects even bragged about that as their "innovation" in industry journals and filled a number of patents for that (this is the reason amd privilege checker runs on all branches)
It seems that they use the same trick Apple used to report their stupidly high sales after the release day. Apple simply account their sales all directly after release week to make an impression that batches with lead times as far away as 6 month look to be sold immediately following the release.
THOSE ARE NOT retail sales. They try to pretend to be bigger than they are, just like Apple did to hype their image
First, you will not be getting any 3 days of active use battery life. That is impossible. The screen alone will drain a 60wh battery in less than 8 hours on a 13 incher if you use it with anymuch comfortable brightness levels
Yes, the problem is if you check for page faults before starting executing a branch, you must check page faults for all branches, but if you check it post factum you need to do page fault check only for the correct branch, thus greatly reducing performance penalty of memory protection checks.
Slashdot Mirror
How terrible, Chinese are invading Americans, so bad
>will apparently be designed with the space for a cutout at the top, much like the iPhone X and its so-called "notch"
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
>Beyond redundancy, one neat thing about engine clusters is that you can create a virtual aerospike effect to some degree.
Not exclusively with really a lot of engines. More smaller nozzles need less length to fully expand the exhaust. And such effect is becoming noticeable even with 2 nozzles.
BTW, with all that AI research bandoozle going within Baidu, they can't even beat Google search accuracy from 10 years ago...
I doubt they will ever improve, no matter how much Ivy league grads they hire, unless they disadopt that cargo-cultish view of the industry they got from the Silicon Valley.
The few SV companies that do perform well, do so exactly because they refuse to go along the local koolaid culture
Laowai shopping never went out of fashion with Chinese dot com crowd
While reading the headline, my first thought was that this was about Yemeni hipsters making budget medium range ballistic missiles from scraps.
Because of no competition, there are Chinese EVs that do beat Teslas on individual metrics, but yet to beat them on overall performance. When they will do, prepare for pricefall.
Leaf used manganese cathode pouch cells with a lot of organics inside, those were not much different from ones stuffed into thin laptops these days. The do degrade and go boom from heat. Phosphate/graphite cells on the other hand can be heated red hot, without going unto thermal runaway.
I mean, Chinese use cheap and simple air cooling, while Tesla has to do forced liquid cooling which is whack a lot more expensive. They have to do this because they use cylindrical cells with tiny internal conductors and very energetic chemistry that is thermal runaway prone.
With brick cells where the membrane zigzags through the cell, the penalty for using thicker contact plates for anode and cathode is not as big as for cylindrical cells where you are forced to use copper foil of equivalent area to anode and cathode simply by the geometry, and need to have enough space left to accommodate for swelling.
About bigger cells requiring more or less cooling, the matter is not about that, but more about the chemistry used. Chinese use phosphate cathodes, that are more chemically stable than manganese or cobalt, and higher current limiting characteristic (no runaway), and thus they can run them hotter, despite them having lower surface area to volume ratio. There are other subtle moments there.
And finally about battery life: Tesla gets more battery life by simply using patently huge batteries that are extensively balanced and conditioned through the lifetime. They do not fully charge or discharge the pack, and to accommodate that they have to put a lot more extra cells.
Chinese have smaller, and much lighter packs that can be charged and discharged near completely without cell lifetime reduction. Smaller battery pack is faster to charge, and when it comes to replacement, it is cheaper to replace. And we should mention that they are much lighter, Chinese make their EVs from steel, and steel manage to come out being lighter than aluminium Teslas.
Not so short term I'll say as somebody with some background in the issue.
Tesla uses many small cells that all require a lot of cooling, weight a lot, cost a lot, and require expensive load balancing circuits.
With them making them just a bit bigger, and getting miniscule cell count reduction, just makes the issue a bit smaller, while bringing up new ones: need for custom tooling, being denied advantage of COTS technology, impossibility of buying cells on open market if your own assembly line goes belly up for some reason, bigger cells have higher risk of overheating, bigger cells will require more cooling, if the cell goes boom, the boom will be bigger, necessitating more massive containment structures.
Compare it with Chinese cars with huge brick cells. They have 12 to 64 of them per car. They are air cooled. They use plastic casing. They have bigger internal conductors that use copper, that have low ohmic heating. Lower cell count makes cell balancing easier and more efficient. While the cell chemistry Chinese use is less energetic, they do get MUCH better energy density because they are bigger. Because they use less energetic chemistry, cells are less likely to go boom by themselves. Because they use bigger , flexible cathodes, cathode swelling is much less of an issue. Lower cathode swelling, greatly extends the cell lifetime.
Chinese simply have better batteries.
Warez is dead? I disagree, ftp://91.217.9.230/pub
What it is with those guys coming out with such retarded names for their companies?
I checked it, and yes. I was 100 bucks off: $56 for N3350, but oddly n4200 costs whopping 80 bucks more
Another thing: dual core apollo lake soc are usually beat quad core models in benchmarks despite having double the cores and more cache. N4200 are less performant than low end models...
It might be a surprise to some, but Apollo lake and ULP cores are priced nearly similarly in China to wholesale buyers around 120 to 170 usd for whole chipset
>Apollo Lake
They are dumping intel stuff before they switch to AMD and Qualcomm
IPhone X has a cut in its display. That is stupid. What if somebody will place a trollish button right under the cut?
Envy mortals -> https://propakistani.pk/packag...
The glorious nation of Pakistan has 200GB data plans for $30 bucks
Ammonia solution showers
FYI: Nortel used to be big with North American defence contractors
The fact that Lenovos did the audit in first place itself tells that Chinese were hoping to shop for more than just an average network gear supplier
Oh, so not only me remembers patent war over software interrupts branch prediction. How old r u man?
>is hard to believe they ignored the risky aspects. I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk
The specific issue that Pentium line CPUs: a) do privilege check asynchronously; b) do it only for the "winning" execution branch was very well known among CPU design community.
Intel architects even bragged about that as their "innovation" in industry journals and filled a number of patents for that (this is the reason amd privilege checker runs on all branches)
It seems that they use the same trick Apple used to report their stupidly high sales after the release day. Apple simply account their sales all directly after release week to make an impression that batches with lead times as far away as 6 month look to be sold immediately following the release.
THOSE ARE NOT retail sales. They try to pretend to be bigger than they are, just like Apple did to hype their image
First, you will not be getting any 3 days of active use battery life. That is impossible. The screen alone will drain a 60wh battery in less than 8 hours on a 13 incher if you use it with anymuch comfortable brightness levels
Yes, the problem is if you check for page faults before starting executing a branch, you must check page faults for all branches, but if you check it post factum you need to do page fault check only for the correct branch, thus greatly reducing performance penalty of memory protection checks.