KK7NIL

It almost certainly refers to 300 mm wafers, which are the largest size used right now. They offer significantly better economics than the older 200 mm wafers or lab experiments done in even smaller (i.e. 100 mm) wafers.

The text in the article supports this:

> This is a commercial 300mm monolithic silicon photonics platform, meaning the technology is ready to scale today, rather than being limited to laboratory experiments.

> Let’s be honest though, it’s a lack of nuance in some world views that need science as an authority the most.

I agree but if they're flat earthers they've already rejected established science, so what's that appeal to authority going to do?

This is why "trust the science" is so memeable, it's a lazy appeal to authority the other party has already told you they don't trust and yet people are shocked when this argument doesn't work.

IIRC from the time I was waiting for employment authorization, I wasn't allowed to do any charity work that could otherwise be a paid position, so be very careful with this charity idea.

> > Trust the science.

>

> Science is a process, not a result. Retractions like this promote the integrity of scientific research and evidence-based medicine.

He was obviously poking fun at people who say "trust the science" when what they really mean is "trust these scientits" or, even better, "trust this one study".

Undoubtedly "trust the science" is little more than an appeal to authority when used in a casual debate, not some appeal to skepticism, peer review and testability.

> aren’t hired away with promises of a salary but instead large signing bonuses

Now you're being nitpicky. Take the vesting period of the sign on bonus, divide the bonus amount by that and add it to the regular salary and you get the effective salary.

> aren’t typically hired individually but as teams.

So? VC bros seem to forget the labor market is also a free market as soon it hurts their cashout opportunity.

> What does FUD mean in this context? I’m precisely relaying a personal anecdote.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Your anecdote is little more than a scare story. It can be summarized as: if you don't let us cashout this time, we'll hold this against you in some undefined future.

> And from the employees’ perspective, as an investor, I’d see them being on an early founding team as a risk going forward.

Every employee is a flight risk if you don't pay them a competitive salary; that's just FUD from VC bros who are getting their playbook (sell the company to the highest bidder and let early employees get screwed) used against them.

Is it? What's wrong with hiring talent for a higher salary?

You have no responsibility for an unrelated company's operations; if that was important to them they could have paid their talent more.

> These non-axial forces are a known cause of USB-C port failures and are explicitly not accounted for in the standard 10k-cycle durability claim.

I agree and that's par for the course for any standard, they have to limit the requirements to something that is economically manufacutrable and testable.

Meanwhile, lightning connectors have no public standard to speak of so this is a mute point.

> USB-C center tongue female design means that the port will break before the cable. With lightning, the cable plug takes all the stress.

This is another a priori armchair expert argument which I just put very little weight on without data to back it up.

> Apple doesn’t publish insertion cycles rating for Lightning connectors, so it’s impossible to provide empirical evidence of that.

That conclusion does not follow. We can still obtain empirical evidence through direct testing without Apple publishing anything.

> In my personal experience, I’ve had two USB-C ports go bad on two MacBooks. I’ve yet to own a USB-C-charging phone, but I’ve never had a Lightning port fail.

That's fair, everyone has different anecdotal experiences as a foundation for their opinion here. The problem is that anecdotal data is just not very informative to others, that's all.

> USB-C is a worse mechanical connector for a device plugged in thousands of times over its lifetime.

USB-C connectors are usually rated for 10k cycles. Do you have any evidence that lighting connectors are rated for more cycles than that?

> The female port of a USB-C connector has a relatively fragile center blade. Lightning's layout was the opposite which makes it more robust and easier to clean.

This is very weak a priori arguing. I could just as well argue that USB-C has the center blade shielded instead of exposed and so is more durable.

Unless you have some empirical evidence on this I don't see a strong argument for better durability from either connector.

> This is only the EUV light source, not an entire wafer fab.

When we say "EUV machine" in the semiconductor context, it's pretty unambiguous that we're talking about a lithography machine using EUV and that can do, at least, ~120 300 mm wafers per hour.

As another comment explained, that machine you linked to is nothing like what we mean by "EUV machine", it's not even attempting to be a lithography tool.

At first I thought you were being willingly misleading but your wording suggests you're not, so I suggest binging Asianometry on YouTube if you'd like to get up to speed on the semi industry.

That's fair, thanks for the heads up.

If you read the article you'd notice that running an LLM locally would not fix this vulnerability.

> They have a desktop-sized 14nm EUV

Who falls for this crap? An ASML EUV machine costs over $100 million and is delivered in dozens of shipping containers, taking up 2 floors in a fab.

You're going to need really extraordinary evidence that the PRC has a "desktop sized EUV machine" if you want us to believe you.

> Being behind doesn't mean they're permanently stuck where they are today

Without EUV, they very much are.

> but aren't our processes running into the wall of soon trying to make transistors smaller than an atom?

No, the finest pitches are still in the low double digit nanometers in 2 nm processes. The "2 nm" nomenclature hasn't denoted a physical dimension for decades.

I would stay away from US fixed income due to low spreads, higher than usual inflation and a devaluing currency in forex.

I'd say ex-US international value stocks, especially EU, are a better hedge.

If each node provides a 10-15% improvement in power, performance and area, how many of those need to compound until your already uncompetitive 7 nm is 10x less efficient, slower and more expensive?

I rewatched the whole video and did not find where he said that. Quite the opposite, he says Chinese EUV academic research is at 2005 levels and is rather unimpressive.

No, they don't.

Their "7 nm" relied on multi patterning DUV which leads to restrictive design rules, more steps and masks and lower yields, which is why I put it in quotes and said it's uncompetitive.

The last DUV node was 10 nm, that's the best logic node they have which is comparable to TSMC/Samsung/Intel's 10 nm.

Substrate is a scam; their marketing is misleading and they have yet to answer to the fundamental reason why X-ray and e-beam failed over 40 years ago (despite it being generally agreed they were the future of litho and optical would soon be dead): writing one line at a time is extremely slow compared to optical which can scan a whole reticle in a fraction of a second.

E-beam is still used for making DUV/EUV masks where the low write speed can be tolerated but no one in the industry thinks it will replace EUV in the silicon litho steps any time soon.

But lay people eat this crap up and journalists turn a blind eye either because they're literally paid PRC shills or because clicks are everything now a days.

If you ask PRC shills, it's just around the corner because this one Chinese lab demonstrated a very small part of the system. And a surprising number of westerners fall for that crap.

My guess is that it's at least 10 years away, but that could obviously change depending on what resources they're willing to commit. But even at that point they'll be 2 decades behind ASML's EUV tech so it probably won't be competitive.

The best China has is an internationally uncompetitive "7nm" fab and that's the best they'll have until they can manufacture EUV machines domestically.

So the EUV blockade has absolutely been effective and the fact that the PRC is paying so many shills to convince westerners otherwise just shows how behind they are.

The main part of the E6B is a very standard logarithmic slide rule. Having it loop unto itself is a neat trick but very ancient.

But perhaps you were referring to one of the many other parts of the E6B which I am not familiar with.

Very few online services are so essential that they require a fail-over plan for an AWS outage, so this is just plain over-engineering.

> Then laugh at the people who are experiencing AWS downtime...

Let's not stroke our egos too much here, mkay?

Have you considered that a widespread outage is a feature, not a bug?

If AWS goes down, no one will blame you for your web store being down as pretty much every other online service will be seeing major disruptions.

But when your super small provider goes down, it's now your problem and you better have some answers ready for your manager. And you'll still be affected by the AWS outage anyways as you probably rely on an API that runs on their cloud!

You know very well it basically only applies to diplomats, but you good faith debate was never your plan here.

That is a total lie, the 14th amendment is absolutely clear and it was passed after the Civil War with the explicit point of granting citizenship to black slaves who, you'll notice, did not have citizen parents:

> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

You imply in your argument that finance mainly makes money from HFT("it's hard to me to see how market trading activity that provides a price for equities to the second") but this is simply not true, HFT and quants make up a very small portion of financial staff or profits.

My understanding is that the majority of big finance's income is from private equity or debt deals (pairing companies who need money with investors who have money), not from trading (there's very few people who we can confidently say are net winning traders and they don't scale).

What point are you trying to make?

That article could be reduced to one phrase: "banks off-load mortgage risk by selling that debt to investors". But that doesn't drive clicks or strike the fear of corporations into your soul.

You can get pretty darn close to static typing by using ty (from the same team as uv).

I've been using it professionally and its been a big improvement for code quality.

Global Foundries sent their EUV machine back (and paid a fat restocking fee to do it), they've stopped trying to compete at the leading edge of logic processes.

SMIC has a DUV multi-patterning 7 nm node which is already economically uncompetitive with EUV 7 nm nodes (except for PRC subsidies) and the economics of DUV only get worse further down, but at least they're trying and will certainly be the first client to use the Chinese EUV machines, whenever those come online.