That makes sense. It's probably less "doing crazy convolution calculations on how sampled ambient noise changes as the helicopter gets close to a pole", and more "rotten wood vibrates slower"
That's very progressive of you and all, but the vast majority of South Korea's military is men doing their mandatory service when they come of age, so it is very much relevant to call out the gender
This is currently a huge source of inefficiency in modern chip design.
I've worked on some of the current highest profile chip projects doing "frontend" RTL design, and at every major chip company I've worked at, and from talking with coworkers about their past experiences at other companies, the handoff-wall between RTL and PD is leaving a substantial amount of perf per power/area on the table. (like 30% I'm general)
RTL designers generally have no visibility into how their designs are getting laid out, and generally don't want to have to care. PD engineers have no visibility into the uArch and low level code details, and maybe they want to care but everything is too obfuscated in general.
So when your pins are misplaced during an early iteration, RTL will blindly add retiming to resolve timing issues and make PD happy but never check if it's actually needed. PD will slave away trying to make busted RTL work with placement and recipe adjustments rather than asking RTL for a trivial fix, etc etc.
There are a ton of small things where visibility into either side of the process would result in measurably better hardware, but the current team structures and responsibility boundaries encourage people not to care.
That final 30% or whatever takes a lot longer to obtain than the first 70%. Big teams want to ship their chip tomorrow and it needs to work. They don't want any more risk than they're already saddled with so just leave it on the table for next time. I think what you're proposing with less siloing is obviously better (it's the only way I want to work) but it's going to come with a price. There is definitely room in the tooling to help with this, and it doesn't need to involve "AI".
Fair enough, AI doesn't have to be the only solution. But I think some of the verification (at all layers in the stacks) opportunities that AI could be key to make this a reality. (Practically, you need to free up time in order to expand responsibilities without making errors.)
I agree, there are a lot of "big picture inefficiencies" that go unnoticed, which can be avoided by having visibility through the stack. Today, siloed teams are primarily focused on day-to-day execution and miss out on these.
Why is this comment dead? (Is it just the poster's alias?) This experience is common everywhere in larger organizations, and absolutely affects chip design.
It's far more reasonable to assume it moves infinitely fast between peasants, but comes to a halt at each one.
Or if not infinitely fast, but we're going to assume a chain could accelerate it indefinitely, than it's still more reasonable to assume each pass happens exactly how fast it needs to for 6s/num_peasants, comes to a halt, and then moves to the next. That way all the peasants have the same, minimum, speed, Instead of some slow, other absurdly fast based on an arbitrarily assumed, linear, acceleration.
(Why not assume exponential acceleration and say after 10 passe s it hits light speed)
Well yeah, this is just supposed to be a paradox where you break down the flaw in the way the problem is presented. Recognizing that there is a flaw isn't the point.
If you believed Bitcoin was under valued, you would just buy Bitcoin and not pay a 100% premium to buy shares in their company.
Also being inflationary is a feature of the US dollar, not a downside. It feels like crypto shills never discuss why inflation is intentional and good and rely on the financially illiterate to be shocked by those 93% and 1/5th numbers
> first designed specifically for inference. For more than a decade, TPUs have powered Google’s most demanding AI training and serving workloads...
What do they think serving is? I think this marketing copy was written by someone with no idea what they are talking about, and not reviewed by anyone who did.
Signal is end-to-end encrypted. One end is the Signal app on your phone. The other end is the Signal app on their phone. The Signal app is developed by people, using computers. Both of those things can be compromised, neither of them are under the perview of the U.S. security agencies.
I would put the market value of a backdoor into all Senior White House communications as certainly >$10B, and probably >$100B, limited only by how long the buyer believed it would be a reliable source of intel. (it may be better to offer it as a subscription service.)
At that point everything should be assumed to be compromised until demonstrated to a reasonable degree of confidence that it's probably safe. A random install from an app store is not that.
> I would put the market value of a backdoor into all Senior White House communications as certainly >$10B, and probably >$100B, limited only by how long the buyer believed it would be a reliable source of intel. (it may be better to offer it as a subscription service.)
Yes - how much would Russia, China, or Iran - and US allies - pay to know what the US is planning? What secrets the US has - strengths and weaknesses. It could be existential for their countries. They even could cash in on market-moving information, and even if they wouldn't pay $100B, so could investors.
But I don't know if I'd try the subscription model with state intelligence agencies. It exposes you indefinitely, rather than take the money and disappear; they won't like you having access to the valuable information; they can just take what you have; they are very dangerous.
A food insecure developing country might be overtly reliant on staple carbs like rice and grains. Easy access to protein sources like meat could also just mean easy access to excess calories, regardless of whether a carb heavy diet would otherwise be more predictive of obesity.
