Presumably referring to the logic foundry business where TSMC is the monopoly power and Intel, Samsung and SMIC are looking to turn it into a duopoly.
732 karma · joined June 16, 2024
The basic peripherals (keyboard and monitor) of today still present the same interface as they did back in the IBM PC era. Everything else is due to massive hardware expansion, not hardware churn.
How often do you update your drivers compare to your typical internet connected app? Software that handles the idiosyncrasies of the hardware (aka drivers) generally has a much longer lifespan than most other software; I don't see how you can reasonably say hardware breaking backwards compatibility is why software keeps changing.
I said x86 has "over 30 years of backwards compatibility". The 80386 was released in 1985, 40 years ago :)
> Intel 80286 introduced a 24-bit address bus to support more memory, but this broke the address wraparound behavior of the 8086.
This is the only breaking change in x86 that I'm aware of and it's a rather light one as it only affected programs relying on an exactly 2^16 memory space. And, again, that was over 40 years ago!
> The shift to x86-64 that Microsoft had to compensate with emulation and WOW64
No, I don't think so. A x86-64 CPU starts in 32 bit mode and then has to enter 64 bit mode (I'd know, I spent many weekends getting that transition right for my toy OS). This 32 bit mode is absolutely backwards compatible AFAIK.
WOW64 is merely a part of Microsoft's OS design to allow 32 bit programs to do syscalls to a 64 bit kernel, as I understand it.
I never said it did; other ISAs have similar if not longer periods of backwards compatability (IBM's Z systems architecture is backwards compatible with the System/360 released in 1964).
> The amazing backwards compatibility of Windows is purely due to the sheer continuous effort of Microsoft.
I never mentioned Windows but it's ridiculous to imply its backwards compatability is all on Microsoft. Show me a single example of a backwards breaking change in x86 that Windows has to compensate for to maintain backwards compatability.
The real reason for software churn isn't hardware churn, but hardware expansion. It's well known that software expands to use all available hardware resources (or even more, according to Wirth's law).
You absolutely can! If it's during a tactical sequence we might call it an intermezzo. If it's not during a tactical sequence we don't usually have a name for it in chess but it happens all the time. The mainlines of the KID are famous for having theory where white goes for a queenside attack and largely ignores the kingside and vice-versa for black, just as one example.
> Chess is almost all tactics. Go on the other hand, is Strategic I used to think so too but I think this is a meaningless and superficial comparison now. Each go move is simpler by itself but to counter balance that you get a much bigger board and generally much longer games with much longer tactical sequences (I'm sure you've had games where you spend over 50 moves in a long tactical battle over a mojo, for example).
It wouldn't, the only way to "shield" from magnetic fields is to get them to induce Eddy currents and but that requires more and more length and as the wavelength gets longer and essentially infinite for the Earth's field which is very slow moving.
> RF ground up there. "ground" is relative and not at all required for a Faraday cage to work.
No, it isn't. As a decent chess and go player I can tell you that they're both just tactics until you approach the master/dan level. And what is strategy if not just a longer form of tactical play?
At the end of the day, strategic play is just play that sets up tactics later on.
Or, to quote Fischer: "Tactics flow from a superior position"
Here's the actual quote:
> This Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Words such as "accelerate", "achieve", "aim", "ambitions", "anticipate", "believe", "committed", "continue", "could", "designed", "estimate", "expect", "forecast", "future", "goals", "grow", "guidance", "intend", "likely", "may", "might", "milestones", "next generation", "objective", "on track", "opportunity", "outlook", "pending", "plan", "position", "possible", "potential", "predict", "progress", "ramp", "roadmap", "seek", "should", "strive", "targets", "to be", "upcoming", "will", "would", and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, which may include statements regarding:
> ...
> potential pause or discontinuation of our pursuit of Intel 14A and other next generation leading-edge process technologies if we are unable to secure a significant external customer for Intel 14A;
I think it's pretty obvious that it's more of a statement to legally cover the company's behind from investor lawsuits than the current plan, and the fact this wasn't repeated anywhere else more prominent backs that up.
Indeed a good showcase of the horizon effect between an a/b and a MCTS engine, thanks for sharing!
> Maybe you're right about correspondence chess. That interview is from 2018 and the machines have got distinctly stronger in that time, but 7 years isn't so long and it could be that human input still has some value for CC.
I've played on ICCF and I can say that the draw situation is much worse now, exactly because engines are so much stronger now, so it's much harder to find good opening novelties against a competent opponent. Engines were infamous for misjudging many closed openings like the KID, but even in the last few years that has really tightened up.
Still, the human element is useful in trying to steer clear of drawish openings and middlegame lines.
This is not true, at least not in very long time formats like correspondence chess: https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspondence-chess-and-corre...
There's also many well known cases where even very strong engines miscalculate and can be beaten (especially in fast time controls or closed positions): https://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/hikaru-nakamura-crush...
The horizon effect is still very real in engines, although it's getting harder and harder to exploit.
I haven't seen any ITAR restrictions on logic nodes, only on 70+ GHz RF and adjacent work that obviously has a direct application to radar.
Here's a lecture by him on the translinear principle: https://youtu.be/LQNJVtcFrCc
And here's some history of his work at Tektronix (where he discovered the translinear principle): https://vintagetek.org/barrie-gilbert/
Comparing the axioms of math to relativity in physics is just nonsensical. Math is independent of observation, if a proof is formally correct now, it will always be correct under that chosen axiomatic system. Sure, we can play with different axioms (as others commented, it's common to drop the axiom of choice), but that doesn't invalidate the previous work at all.
I believe several of these were also used by civilian aviation before and after the war
TL;DR: both sides used systems with multiple ground antennas that allowed pilots to essentially triangulate their position or at least know they're in a given lane.
This is simply Marxist crap and outright untrue.
> in case of crisis the gov routinely starts bailouts and save the financial markets with interest rate operations or open market operations. those operations have deep re-distributive implications
This is a rather new phenomenon and not at all necessary for profitable private investment.
It's really completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Maybe you should stop reading Marxist economists.
Right, it's well known that the US' demographics are the foundation for its strong economy, not advancements in productivity and technology. /s
> if there is no growth also the financial markets won't grow.
Financial markets don't need to grow for your investments to pay off. Investing into growth stocks is very popular now a days but value stocks (which might not grow at all but have profitable operations) and fixed income are perfectly good options too.
> if we dismiss public pensions as a ponzi scheme, then by the same logic, private plans—completely at the mercy of market swings
Some of them can be, the difference is that public pensions are a Ponzi scheme I'm legally forced to contribute to and have little say in. Not so for private plans.