I started reading and it immediately sounded like AI, sent it to pangram and it agreed. The amount of posts praising it like it's fuckin oxygen or something ... dead fuckin internet
Those skeptical are anticipating a possible large drop in demand before that backlog clears. ie. a change in market conditions that means that many of the orders in that backlog would be cancelled or belong to bankrupt entities.
Many words have already been spilled as to whether or not that might happen, so I'll just shrug rather than adding to them.
No, but the fact that they're the worst-performing BBB bonds, the company is burning cash, and the equity being down 38% since its peak after 1 month of trading is indicative of the market's…suspicions.
We'll see what ratings agencies think of the health of the company.
If these figure represent actual deaths (big if), those people will have died because literally nobody on earth was willing to pay to keep them alive--yourself included.
If a pillar is removed from a building with no warning, no one would claim that its collapse was from the unwillingness of anyone else to put a new one in place.
If DOGE had announced a 2-year phaseout of humanitarian aid, governments and NGOs might have had time to fill the gap. Doing so arbitrarily and abruptly was simply cruel.
We both know you haven't lifted a finger to help these people. You're not interested in actually saving lives, just that sweet righteous indignation (after all, it's free!)
I've been pursuing the public good my entire career, including making major career moves to improve the developing world. You've crafted a delusion to justify your clearly antisocial behavior. You have no right dictating to people that they need to do x, y, and z to have genuine ethics when you are stumping to increase child mortality in Africa. Good day to you sir!
But wait, I do pay taxes? By you logic, no policy choice can ever cause harm because the responsibility is always redistributable to several billion bystanders. Pretty convenient!
Yes. Most modern sunscreens are photostable, but even if you aren't going in water or sweating, just moving around (and thus scrunching and un-scrunching your skin on a micro level over and over again) is enough to mess up the sunscreen layer you put on your skin.
The process used for RAM and the process used for the cutting edge microprocessors are nothing alike, so it’s physically impossible to have the same piece of silicon have both DDR RAM and the CPU. You’re not really going to find a citation to something this well known. Literally every phone, for instance, has “unified memory” with the RAM die stacked on top of the CPU die, as well.
The problem there is that Apple's marketing speak of "unified memory" creates different and confusing connotations.
It is not as surprising that modern chips stack or tile dies together, such as on phones and the like.
edit: Note also there is historical precedent for specialized SoCs that integrate DRAM on the same ASIC, see eDRAM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDRAM
Your argument also require the reader knowing the technical premises that CPU and RAM processes are different nm, and that processes of different nm cannot be done on the same chip. These are not obvious or even absolute facts to anyone.
Actually a good place to find these sorts of citations are tech magazines that explain these new things, maybe like Ars Technica used to (i.e., a piece on "What is Apple's unified memory"), or else in academic research that sometimes studies contemporary chips, their research papers might have a blurb discussing the actual hardware architecture of such and such company's design. Or maybe there's an EETimes piece discussing Apple Silicon technology in one of their back issues, e.g. in trade journal literature.
So, what is well known varies depending on the audience. It is both plausible, and appropriate, for technological ambiguities and details to be explicitly discussed and clarified, either by the maker or by other journalists and writers.
And finally, consider also what is well-misknown. If you go online and look, lots of lay comments since Apple Silicon really do believe they are literally the same IC chip. So you have to ask how did that come to be?
> The problem there is that Apple's marketing speak of "unified memory" creates different and confusing connotations.
Unified memory has nothing to do with them being on the same chip… it just has to do with them being the same pool of memory shared between cpu and gpu. Apple marketing is pretty clear on that too. The only reason it’s unique is that doing unified memory on laptops is kinda unheard of until then. It’s been the standard on tablets and phones for years.
Yes and no. There is sharing of RAM with IGPs from AMD and Intel, but my understanding is the way Microsoft handles the RAM sharing isn't quite as 'unified' as with MacOS. It's not a difference in hardware really, but a software implementation. Also, when we're talking about older Intel/AMD IGP solutions, the graphics cards paired really couldn't take advantage of larger amounts of RAM.
Something like the new Strix Halo stuff from AMD is actually useful with larger amounts of RAM, and basically is the same as the Apple architecture.
No; that’s absurd to say it’s physically impossible, it is absolutely possible to etch whatever arbitrary pattern into a physical substrate, physics pending. What is true is that the CPU and DRAM fabrication processes are very unalike, one uses highly complex patterning for the logic, the other uses many blocks repeated for memory, and can be done on a higher process node as it does not require the same intricacy's. It’s not cost efficient to use logic fabrication to make memory. And you won’t get the yield with highly complex patterning for logic from something that is meant to stamp out the same DRAM block billions of times.
So one day, when we have process nodes far smaller what we do today, a DRAM fab can print highly complex patterning for logic, compatible to today’s CPUs on die. And the logic fabs will be making cpus many times more complex than that. Because economics.
> No; that’s absurd to say it’s physically impossible, it is absolutely possible to etch whatever arbitrary pattern into a physical substrate, physics pending.
Logic processes do not have the capabilities to even manufacture DRAM. It’s not about cost or yield, they just do not have the correct blocks to make DRAM. The processing to make DRAM makes it incompatible with making logic at the current speeds and densities.
There were some much older processes where you could do both, but those are about 10 years old now and we’ve long since moved on. I do not think there will be a future where you can do both.
I would assume 395MW is the nameplate capacity, so you would multiply it by a capacity factor and time to get the energy production in a specific interval. Capacity factor in hydro can vary a lot by season and how much they want to produce vs reservoir levels, but for a back of the envelope 100% capacity factor you have 395 MW × 8,760 hours/year = 3.46TWh/year . Capacity factor could be in the high 90s in good conditions and maximum production but I expect it's a lot lower unless it's a wet year with very few big maintenance jobs needed.
> Capacity factor could be in the high 90s in good conditions and maximum production but I expect it's a lot lower unless it's a wet year with very few big maintenance jobs needed.
Most rivers this far away from the equator don't receive the same inflows each season. For example, the spring will have very high flow due to melting snow in the mountains that feed that reservoir. I guess the winter has the lowest flow because snow melts much less in the winter.
I seriously doubt that any non-nuclear power generation in history has ever gotten to 90% capacity factor. Based on industry averages, HH is probably about 55-65% capacity. Things that effect this are: low demand periods (caused by lots of renewables), maintenance periods and low water levels at times (in winter) behind the dam.
Also, PG&E is HIGHLY regulated. Its prices, its generation and its executive compensation are all set by the state of CA. That SF wants to complain about those numbers is pretty amazing. Remember, they still don't have enough money in the tree trimming budget so that those same lines don't start fires in other parts of the state. Its the same wire that connects HH to SF. And somehow the city is going to manage that wire better?
PS The tree trimming budget is set by the state too. Why is it so low? Renewables cost money and that's one of the budgets they raided to get the funds.
It's much more obvious when you look at the user's comment history.
Curiously my comment above was on +3 karma last time I looked, but now it's on -2. It seems like the median HN user is getting worse at slop detection (or is otherwise ambivalent towards slop comments).
IDGI. How is a company that owns a bunch of infrastructure you almost have to use to put your service on the internet not more profitable such that they have to do layoffs?
reply