Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)G
Posts
1
Comments
439
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Might not need to even have much new mining.

    Gallium is primarily extracted from bauxite, which is already mined worldwide for aluminum processing. So with gallium being a very small byproduct of aluminum processing from mined bauxite, the bottleneck probably isn't in the mines, because mining and processing bauxite is already something many countries do. It's just not always economically profitable to further process the gallium at the same time, but if the need is there, that can be ramped up at existing aluminum plants.

    It's not an overnight process but with many elements, the limiting factor isn't actual rarity, but the high energy/equipment needs of the process to extract and purify the element, and the high amounts of waste produced.

  • I haven't seen any reporting on just how much gallium, germanium, and antimony is used in electronics. I can see that it's basically present in all electronics, and the price per kilogram has gone up a lot under the restrictions, and that China accounts for 94% of the world's production.

    Ok, so is this like gold, then, where very small quantities are used in most electronics so that it matters, but doesn't actually account for a significant percentage of the cost of the finished product?

    How much gallium is used to manufacture a typical cell phone, a laptop, a car? How much does that $90/kg price hike translate to actual devices? Because if 1 gram of gallium goes into a particular device, that's an increase of 9 cents in raw materials, basically a rounding error.

  • Of course. But even for people who don't read the article, it's still best practice to just copy the headline from the article so that it's the top of the Lemmy thread.

  • Yeah, the actual headline to the article is "Even Netflix struggles to identify and understand the cost of its AWS estate," which OP has very unhelpfully shortened to post "Netflix struggles to understand its cloud costs."

    The word "Even" is doing a lot of work, and leaving it out changes the meaning of the headline.

  • Exactly. To extend the junk food analogy, this is like making donuts from scratch in your own kitchen: customized to your preferences, maybe tastes better, but ultimately you're still making a mess in your kitchen and eating unhealthy.

  • If you're writing 100 MB/s, it'll still take 300,000 seconds to write 30TB. 300,000 seconds is 5,000 minutes, or 83.3 hours, or about 3.5 days. In some contexts, that can be considered a long time to be exposed to risk of some other hardware failure.

  • My theory is that there is quite a few servers that are chosing to defederate. The number of total servers continues to drop according to fedidb.

    Or admins are just finding it not worth bothering with administering their own server and turning them off.

  • It sounds like you want a way to collect articles, including full text offline, and organize them in a searchable way. Why do you need RSS for this? Just use a blogging platform where you can organize each post, list/sort/filter by date or topic or original source, and use the search functionality in the actual blog platform.

  • Dedicated units were available from brands like TomTom in the early 2000's, and cell phones started getting it around 2007 or so (I remember very expensive blackberry plans had it around then). Android launched with it in 2008, and iPhones started allowing apps like Google Maps with turn by turn navigation by around the end of 2012 or so.

  • No forum, email or word processor (even WordPerfect for the c64) or Notepad uses this

    I think the convention of 2 newlines for each paragraph is a longstanding norm in plaintext. The old Usenet, list servs, plain text email, etc., was basically always like that, because you could never control how someone else wraps their text. 2 new lines would be a new paragraph no matter what, while single new lines could create ambiguity between an author's intentional line break versus the rendering software's decision to wrap an existing line.

    For lists and the like, you'd want to be able to have newlines without new paragraphs, but you'd generally want ordered lists or unordered lists at that point.

    For an obvious example of markup languages where newlines and carriage returns don't have syntactic meaning, look at literally the most popular one: HTML.

    So markdown was essentially enforcing the then existing best practices for pure plain text communication, to never use single line breaks except in lists.

    Most UIs don't even have a preview option, let alone need one, because they don't require you to have a stick up your ass to 'get' using them.

    It was pretty common before Markdown took over that forums and other user-input rich text fields used raw html (or a subset of html tags), or something syntactically similar to html's opening and closing tags (BBcode, vBulletin markup, etc.).

    Markdown was basically the first implementation that was designed to be human readable in plaintext but easily rendered into rich text (with an eye towards HTML). It's not a coincidence that it took off in the early days of the "web 2.0" embrace of user-submitted content in asynchronous forms.

    I get the complaint. But I think markdown makes a lot of sense as a way to store and render text, and that one compromise is worth it overall.

  • That dude was fired.

  • This is exciting. Having another player in the cutting edge fabrication space is a good thing, and can help keep pressure on Samsung and TSMC and Intel to innovate and continue to make progress.

  • But I think it's asymmetrical to favor the attacker, because the king can only move one square at a time and space needs to be cleared behind it, while the attacking queens just need a clear line of sight.

    Attacking the f pawn, the king side bishop, only requires 3 moves: move a pawn out of the way, move a queen into the field, take the pawn. On defense, you can't move the king backwards until the fourth move, and you'd be blocking yourself in so that moving the king backwards again will take at least another 3 moves. If you're moving backwards 2 rows in 7 moves, the attacking opponent can already check you a few times so that you might be forced to move forward or waste moves not productively moving backwards.

    I need a playable board of this to really explore these ideas though.

  • There's no space behind him to start, so I'd think that it would take a minimum 2 moves per row to get back, while an attacker wouldn't be so limited at plowing forward. How far back could you get the king before the front collapses and the opposing queens come breaching through?

  • Seems like the strategy should be to open up a diagonal with the original queen and just launch as many queens as quickly as possible into the field

  • Lots and lots of people went on the 98 to XP to 7 to 10 path, skipping Me, Vista, and 8. No reason that pattern can't continue.

  • Intel's packaging doesn't seem to be that far behind TSMC's, just with different strengths and weaknesses, at least on the foundry side. On the design side they were slow to actually implement chiplet based design in the actual chips, compared to AMD who embraced it full force early on, and Apple who rely almost exclusively on System-in-a-Package designs (including their "ultra" line of M-series chips that are two massive Max chips stitched together) where memory and storage are all in one package.

  • So what IS their strategy now?

    I think they need to bet the company on regaining their previous lead in actual cutting edge fabrication of semiconductors.

    TSMC basically prints money, but the next stage is a new paradigm where TSMC doesn't necessarily have a built-in advantage. Samsung and Intel are gunning for that top spot with their own technologies in actually manufacturing and packaging chips, hoping to leapfrog TSMC as the industry tries to scale up mass production of chips using backside power and gate all around FETs (GAAFETs).

    If Intel 18A doesn't succeed, the company is done.

  • Foxconn had two groups of engineers leave and create Intel and AMD when they were dissatisfied with how management was running the company.

    You're thinking of Fairchild, not Foxconn.

    William Shockley led the team that invented the transistor while at Bell Labs, and then went on to move back to his home state of California to found his own company developing silicon transistors, ultimately resulting in the geographical area becoming known as Silicon Valley. Although a brilliant scientist and engineer, he was an abrasive manager, so 8 of his key researchers left the company to form Fairchild Semiconductor, a division of a camera and imaging company with close ties to military contracting.

    The researchers at Fairchild developed the silicon integrated circuit (Texas Instruments developed the first integrated circuit with germanium, but it turns out that semiconductor material wasn't good for scaling and hit a dead end early on), and grew the company into a powerhouse. Infighting between engineers and management (especially east coast based management dictating what the west coast lab was doing) and Fairchild's policy of not sharing equity with employees, led Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce (who had been 2 of the 8 who left Shockley for Fairchild) to go and found Intel, poaching a talented young engineer named Andy Grove.

    Intel originally focused on memory, but Grove recognized that the future value would be in processors, so they bet the company on that transition to logic chips, just in time for the computer memory market to get commoditized and for Japanese competition to crush the profit margins in that sector. By the 90's, Intel became known as the dominant company in CPUs. Intel survived more than one generation on top because they knew when to pivot.