j4k3

As far as I understand it, wouldn't the cell library be more like the node equivalent of a KiCAD library for 0402 passive footprints for PCB design? Like here is how we must do gates, buses, etc. But that has nothing to do with the way the ALU is setup or the LCR aspects of a final design? I've honestly only watched Asianometry, skimmed Intro to VLSI a few times, dabbled in FPGA, built Ben Eater's bread board computer, and screwed around with a CPU scheduler to learn why my last computer sucked at complex CAD assemblies. When I was looking for AI hardware to run LLM's I went deep enough to understand the specific CPU limitation and upon learning about my phone's matrix coprocessor I tried learning enough to understand why the thing even exists. That lead me to the understanding that a model can be designed for a specific architecture and run MUCH faster and smaller. I explain things as they sit on my road map of understanding, and knowing I'm likely wrong on the edge cases. I am no expert. I'm trying to give anyone enough rope to pull on so that I can find out here I'm wrong and learn. I share because I want to learn, I want to be wrong, but only in a way that I can extend incrementally from my mental roadmap.

::: spoiler I appreciate the perspective, and acknowledge that Apple is on an edge node. ARM sells the IP blocks required to create masks. Apple is designing chips as much an a toddler with wooden toy blocks is a master carpenter. They are paying a hefty royalty to ARM both for the design and for every single chip sold. RISC-V obsoletes this business model.

While it is true that Intel struggles, the Intel/AMD duality and transparency have a history that goes back to the government/enterprise requirement for second sourcing. Perhaps we live in a world where figureheads are completely ignorant of single source extortion and monopolies, but this is the direct inevitability of any move to ARM.

I believe, the push for ARM is limited to the consumer space, and is attempting to follow the footsteps of smartphones, and Apple, as a method of planned obsolescence through a proprietary POSIX kernel. This move is intended to undercut the market in hopes that people are ignorant enough to sell their right of ownership and get stuck with a worthless product in the long term.

One could argue that all hardware is a worthless product long term. That has been the case for quire a while, but not as recently, and won't remain the case in the future. The odds are high that your present mobile device is not much more advanced than your last. If your present device was designed for reparability and durability, it could likely last 5-10 times longer than the orphaned kernel used to steal ownership and prevent you from doing so. That kernel leverages a proprietary binary that supports the hardware and obsoletes the device. Every device model, and even some carrier sub-models have a unique binary that makes no sense to reverse engineer to open source the support. It has been attempted before, such as the LG Hammerhead, but the challenge is too monumental and time consuming.

All that said, I don't think anyone has seen where the market is headed right now. If you step back to the big picture abstraction, as I love to do, there is a very important shift that is happening right now. At the present, all processor designs have failed. They use a math coprocessor for matrix multiplication. Thia is an absolute disaster for the CPU architecture. Intel tried this in the early days of x86 with a math coprocessor as an accessory and it failed miserably in practice. Under the surface, this issue comes down to the bandwidth of the L2 to L1 cache memory.

I have been thinking about this for awhile, and while entirely speculative, I don't think this is a solvable problem without a 10 year scale redesign from scratch. This area of the die is at the edge of the insanely fast clock speeds in the core. Increasing the bus width here will inevitably cause major issues. This is in the gigahertz regime where electrical properties turn magic with signals that can jump gaps all over the place because everything is a capacitor, a resistor, and an inductor. The power differential of signals in this region is miniscule, and a large amount of parallelism is a monumental hurtle for instances when the majority of that bus is in the high state. If that bus could be wider, I believe it already would be. The push for single threaded performance and the marketability of CPU speed is what drove the evolution of this CPU architecture for decades now.

The market is focused on the most viable alternative of the maths coprocessor using a GPU, but this is a hack and is long term untenable. In the long term, data centers are not going to bear the overhead of a dual compute solution. Anyone that designs a new scalable processor that can handle both traditional code and matrix multiplication flexibly will win the ensuing market across the board. Any business that can handle both types of execution and scale to accommodate demand utilizing their entire available infrastructure will inevitably be much more efficient and with more profitability.

What does this really mean, it means that as of a year and a half ago, the entire market changed at the foundational level. Hardware is very slow. It takes 10 years from initial idea to first consumer market availability. At best, that means that the current systems paradigm has ~8 years before total obsolescence. I am willing to bet the farm, no one will be using a CPU from the present, or a GPU as a math coprocessor for matrix math.

How does this change the market? - nobody asked - It takes away the advantage of incumbency and establishment. It also takes away the security of iterative conservativism. Now all the sudden it is a massive liability to be iteratively conservative. Simply having the capital to pursue this new shift is a viable path to a competitive market share. There is absolutely no reason to hire ARM to do anything from scratch like this. It is far smarter to poach their engineers and from academia and use RISC-V without paying the royalty to an unnecessary middle man. ARM's only selling point is the initial cost savings of a prepackaged design, but all of their IP blocks are still focused on single threaded code execution. In fact, ARM is at a major disadvantage due to the nature of reduced instructions as it will require a redesign to accommodate an AVX like instruction capable of loading matrix math quickly.

The primary way Apple/ARM is handling AI workloads right now is through software optimisations. Sizing the tensors to the actual hardware massively improves the speed. This is simply software stuff. AI is moving too fast for this to work as a long term practice. Every model architecture needs to be tweaked, and the future will be very different. A flexible solution at the hardware level is required.

American businesses have become extremely slow and conservative. There is no telling who is doing the next generation of dominant hardware right now. Judging by the clown show of how the Americans handled tooling up for EV's, I expect the industry will pivot to Asia entirely. They have the foresight and stability to compete in this situation. The only question is really if ASML wants to stay relevant and sell to China, or if China has already found a replacement solution for EUV. I don't think anyone will reveal a single detail of what they are working on in the present, but when everyone shows their hand, it is a truly open statistical game unlike any time in the last 30 years. I see no reason why the establishment has a fortified entrenchment in the market.

I believe this will kill both ARM and x86 in a different future world, bond.

::: spoiler Thinkpads were the enterprise standard. They were well documented and had full spec implementations of software. This was the reputation that built the icon.

I don't trust anything from Google and especially anything with ARM. I'll use Graphene, but only because of the TPM chip that can better prove what is happening in hardware when absolutely every mobile device made is a heap of shit hardware.

With a computer I have better options. When I was younger and dumber, I thought Android was great because it was Linux. Since then I learned that the entire scheme of Android is a way for google to enable and manipulate an industry while stealing ownership of all consumer devices using orphaned kernels to depreciate devices.

I learned my lesson. Everything google touches is a shitty scheme. Everything from the "free" stalkerware internet model that has completely undermined the third pillar of democracy (free press/freedom of information), the ownership over a part of me that is used to manipulate me, to the theft of my device itself; nothing google does is ever in your best interest. The only time it is worth buying google stuff is with an extremely well reasoned group like Graphene OS that have nothing to do with google and are not in any way funded by or associated with google.

ARM is dead in the water. The writing is on the wall. The same last hoorah of hardware happened when Power PC, and the 68k Motorola stuff was about to die. The most important thing to know is how Apple actually works and has always worked when it is successful. Apple leverages sinking ship silicon with buying power, and next level software development to squeeze all the untapped potential out of the device. All of the bugs and issues are fairly well known and documented. This low grade trailing edge hardware is placed in a pretty dress and marketed to people that are clueless about actual hardware. These people are paying a premium. Their stuff works great and performs quite well for what it is, but nothing about it is cutting edge. Apple profits from selling old tech as a premium product. The 6502 was a hackjob that started the trend and it only existed because it was a third as much money as all other processors. That was its only real selling point. Their fab quality was so bad, MOS couldn't compete with the speeds of their competition. They came up with the first dual instruction loading pipeline to try and get anywhere near the speeds of Zilog, Intel, and Motorola. This is how Apple started; with the 6502. The only architecture that Apple has ever used that has not already failed is x86. When Apple chooses ARM, that is the death knell. The true tell about ARM is how it was sold by the original Acorn group ownership right after RISC-V won the legal case against UC Berkeley for full independence. The entire business model of ARM is to keep everything proprietary. This is a key player in theft of ownership and the dystopianism of the present neo feudal digital age. This is the polar opposite of the original legacy of the IBM Thinkpad. The present hardware with Thinkpad stickers doesn't come close to that original legacy in any way. The world is more complicated now. But, we have tools like Linux hardware probe to find what works and what doesn't, and distros like Fedora just work.

Why do all of his sessions end in entropy.

... I don't even understand his euphemisms any more

Most are derived from Psalms, Proverbs, and other locations in the old testament. It came from Catholicism. The weakest of the seven for a Biblical origin is Sloth, as it is derived from a failure to act in line with scripture. The list itself is not of canonical origin but is instead a collection of thoughts in a simplification that is easier to digest and remember.

There is some value in the scripture when it comes to philosophy, however small that may be. It is a great example of what humans were able to directly observe in their time, the ways humans were manipulated with their vulnerabilities, how politics and religion were the same thing in past eras, and many other minor intrigues. Still, 99% of life that has ever existed has gone extinct, and there is not a single reference in scripture that reflects ontological knowledge of the universe. Every bit of every religious work around the world can be explained by human observations and meddling. If a God exists, the least they could have done is prove their existence by giving any of the cosmological constants that are the fundamental building blocks of the universe, or act like a sane person and give me a call any time - my phone is on. Faith is a synonym for fantasy, and primarily persists because of religious isolationist social networking, and teaching faith to gullible children before they have a choice in their social networking development path.

Sure, just devise a plan where throwing better results in statistical sexual advantages and wait 50k years. Problem is, by that time, the universe will be a monoculture of Arch Linux users.

If it is anything like the polycarbonate lenses on cars, it will take extremely tedious polishing, and then you'll have continuous issues with yellowing because polycarbonate is not UV stable.

With my auto body shop, I sanded the lenses to 2000 grit and used a polyurethane clearcoat. However, typical automotive clearcoats are not optically perfect. It does not matter with an automotive headlamp, and 99.9% of people will never see the optical properties unless I pointed them out specifically. That said, coatings like automotive clearcoats are designed to adhere to very specific types of substrates. What I was doing was WAY outside of the intended use. I doubt any of the lenses I clearcoated lasted more than 3-5 years as a result.

The PITA part of clearing lenses like I was doing with headlights is that ALL of the old coating must be removed first. If I didn't sand off every last bit of that coating, it was very noticeable in the final outcome. I had some tricks, but it is not possible to use course grades of sandpaper that would make fast work of it situation but require a primer to level in a typical body shop situation. This meant I had to start with 1k grit. That takes FOREVER to sand through a coating like what headlamps have.

Sanding anything like this is not compatible with optical precision lenses. I have also played with telescopes and building my own eyepieces while also dreaming about grinding my own mirror for a large dob. Optical precision in lenses is OP insane levels. I don't have the vocabulary to express just how tiny the difference is between good, okay, and absolute trash in optics.

Combining my experiences in these areas, there is absolutely no chance that you'll be able to polish or abrade then polish an optical lens and yield an acceptable outcome. No matter what you try, the coating will abrade/polish at a different rate than the exposed sections of the underlying polycarbonate lens. This will always result in an uneven surface at optical quality kinds of levels. You would need a sanding block capable of matching the contour of the lens perfectly so as to only abrade away the coating section before contacting the lens.

While clearing headlamps, I had one of two tricks. If all I was doing is shooting the lenses, I would mix my clear without any additional reducer (special solvent) and with a fast catalyst. This required special gun settings and higher pressures to avoid orange peal textures. If I was mixing clear for other panel work, I had to do a few misting passes with clear in between my other panel work. The thin misted coating limits the exposure of the underlying polycarbonate to the solvent present in the clear. If I did a regular wet pass like I would with a panel, the lens would react to the solvent and looked like a shattered windshield.

I don't know of anyone else that has ever clearcoated headlamps like this. While my work may not have lasted as long as a typical clear, it was a far better solution than polishing, which reoxidizes within a few weeks and worse with the increased exposed surface area after each polishing. For higher end cars, dealers would just pay me to install reproduction headlamps from LKQ, as these will last like the originals or better.

Those are the basics of what I know. I shared as an abstract way to help you understand the scope of what I know, and what you should expect based on this tangentially related expertise. I do not believe you can be successful at removing that coating. In automotive paint, it is not possible to just remove a clearcoat from any surface chemically without impacting the deeper substrate.

My feet, yours, or potato-supreme court king feet?

Funny. No. This is not remotely comparable to CPU's crashing because of a lack of R&D and half ass quarter earnings profiteering culture's lack of intelligent long term thinking. It is not remote accessible. This is just corporate psyops in an attempt to coverup their overwhelming neo feudal incompetence. If they had the staff and invested reasonably, the problems wouldn't happen. Paint the world in shit to continue the claim that yours does not stink. Only idiots buy into that.

Probably, AMD was only doing open source because Nvidia wasn't. Now that it is no longer as advantageous since Nvidia is open sourcing (still no nvcc !!!), it is less advantageous. It's typical capitalism conservative terminal brain rotting cancer. They don't do the right thing unless it is profitable to do so. There is no big picture or ethics; just criminals and quarterly reports.

How was the salad?

Neptune and Uranus are homological. Neptune was oversaturated in Voyeurger imagery to expose its dark spot from between the clouds.

Pluto was ostracized for dipping perigee in behind Neptune's aphelion. But you might not know Pluto is in a locked position holding Charon with Bary exposed in the center. It's an open secret that they are not straight planet and submissive. The IAU is too intimidated by Bary's big 9 with those dumbledwarf orbs rule.