Not sure how it is these days, but back around y2k my buddy and I would hunt down Superbowl ads on the internet cause they were usually quite funny (and not aired here in Norway).
this exact 'cottage industry' you speak of is what existed in north america and started little conpanies like Apple, etc.
The sad fact that we lost all of these because of the entire electronics supply and design chain moving to Taiwan and China, is why we are where we are. These barriers might bring some back, who knows.
Ultimately global open borders, for goods and services, had their own issues. For example open competition between free market economies and centrally planned economies creates rather obvious advantages of scale that are skewed...
> The sad fact that we lost all of these because of the entire electronics supply and design chain moving to Taiwan and China, is why we are where we are. These barriers might bring some back, who knows.
And yet almost all the actual design was still happening in the U.S.
It’s almost like the origin of the components didn’t matter. Access did.
And even if the origin might have shifted the fact that access increased made Americans stronger in Tech not weaker.
Right now, we don’t have origins of manufacturing nor access. Even if some parts of the industry does reshore to the U.S., the access will still be limited primarily to those parts of the industry that re-shored and even there access would be lower due to higher costs.
It’s incredible how America had the fastest growing major economy, was the leader in nearly all the industries of the future, has insanely high per capita income that continues to grow, and decided to throw all that away all because it refuses to undo the decisions that allow all that growth in wealth to accumulate with a tiny minority of the country.
I agree entirely with what you said. To extend on your point, we _want_ the higher order manufacturing here. Not the lower order.
Think for a second. Would you rather there be a new aluminum plant in the US? Or would you rather there be another successful airplane manufacturer. In no world does prefering the aluminum plant get you anywhere close to the same GDP of a airplane factory
We want both. We don't need nearly enough airplanes to employ everyone assembling airplanes. The airplane workers and engineers being in close contact with the aluminum workers and engineers will enable innovation from both. And if it becomes harder to get aluminum from another country, having the domestic plant means we can keep making airplanes. But of course Trump's senile "plan" will get us neither.
Was there a real example of centrally planned economies after the fall of the ussr? More like centrally guided: Korea, Japan, China are all equally good examples.
Which is where? A country outpacing everyone else in growth and recovery after COVID?
This assumption that globalism = bad because we don't have people assembling electronics for $10/hour is strange. Does some of that need to be reshored for national security? Definitely, and that's why we have the CHIPS act but Trump is trying to kill it so I'm not really sure what these tariffs are trying to accomplish and I don't think this administration does either.
At the 1940s Manhattan project, back when computer meant a job: "person who computes mathematical statements", major advancements were made in the integration of hyperbolic PDEs, by substituting electro-mechanical and then vacuum-tube machines to do the job. You know, those hard-wired vacuum tube monsters like ENIAC.
You could argue that the First useful thing electronic computers did was integration...
Electronics themselves work by understanding integration.
It's full circle. But with Lisp and Lambda Calculus even an Elementary school kid could understand integration, as you are literally describing the process as if they were Lego blocks.
Albeit in Forth would be far easier.
It's almost telling the computer that multiplying it's iterated addition, and dividing, iterated substraction.
Floating numbers are done with specially memory 'blocks', and you can 'teach' the computer to multiply numbers bigger than 65536 in the exact same way humans do with pen and paper.
Heck, you can set float numbers by yourself by telling Forth how to do the float numbers by following the standard and setting up the f, f+, f/... and outputting rules by hand.
Slower than a Forth done in assembly? Maybe, for sure;
but natively, in old 80's computers, Forth was 10x faster than Basic.
From that to calculus, it's just telling the computer new rules*.
And you don't need an LLM for that.
Hi, author here :) It shouldn’t be OOD, unless its too noisy maybe? And what scaling factor did you use? Single image SR is a highly ill-posed problem, so at higher upscaling factors it just becomes really difficult…
Even according to platonism souls are forms and forms are described by science. The only difference is that forms are substance and can exist detached from matter, but this doesn't affect computability. Moreover, mathematics is epitome of eidos.
The commenter's point was to disagree with the previous comment that "souls aren't real". Lack of evidence either way means we don't know. Occam's razor, while a good heuristic, is a heuristic, not a theorem.
Eh? By all indications compute is now evolving SLOWER than ever. Moore's Law is dead, Dennard scaling is over, the latest fab nodes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
This isn't the 80s when compute doubled every 9 months, mostly on clock scaling.
Indeed, generational improvements are at an all time low. Most of the "revolutionary" AI and/or GPU improvements are less precision (fp32 -> fp16 -> fp8 -> fp4) or adding ever more fake pixels, fake frames, and now in the most recent iteration multiple fake frames per computed frame.
I believe Nvidia has some published numbers for the 5000 series that showed DLSS off performance, which allowed a fair comparison to the previous generation, on the order of 25%, then removed it.
Thankfully the 3rd party benchmarks that use the same settings on old and new hardware should be out soon.
Fab node size is not the only factor in performance. Physical limits were reached, and we're pulling back from the extremely small stuff for the time being. That is the evolutionary part.
Revolutionary developments are: multi-layer wafer bonding, chiplets (collections of interconnected wafers) and backside power delivery. We don't need the transistors to keep getting physically smaller, we need more of them, and at increased efficiency, and that's exactly what's happening.
All that comes with linear increases of heat, and exponential difficulty of heat dissipation (square-cube law).
There is still progress being made in hardware, but for most critical components it's looking far more logarithmic now as we're approaching the physical material limits.
Thanks for all your work buro9! I've been an lfgss user for 15 years. This closure as a result of bureaucratic overreach is a great cultural loss to the world (I'm in Canada). The zany antics and banter of the London biking community provided me, and my contacts with which I have shared, many interesting thoughts, opinions, points of view, and memes, from the unique and authentic London local point of view.
LFGSS is more culturally relevant than the BBC!
Of course governments and regulations will fail realize what they have till it's gone.
We just have to get creative, or discover some new physics :-)
In addition to the ark-ship colony, or the cryosleep slow ship:
1. Assuming it's a stream of robotic probes doing flybys, without decelerating, we have the Breakthrough Starshot approach. Maybe there's a way to use the target system's sun for solar sail braking? Send smart enough robots that have agency, that can do the exploring for us.
2. For human travel - it could just be a bunch of frozen embryos with a robotic nursemaid, accelerated via external propulsion and decelerated via nukes / high-g aerobraking... (Raised by Wolves had a cool introduction like this in the first episode - then went quickly downhill)
"we need new physics" basically means "I hope this isn't true". I get it. I think many of us would like to wander the stars in a reasonable timeframe but there's simply no evidence the Universe works this way.
As for cryosleep, this curently seems unlikely but not impossible. For one thing, the decay of radioactive elements in your body (primarily Carbon-14) would give you about a lethal dose of radiation after about a century. Some organisms have natural antifreeze and other means of surviving low temperatures. We do not. Freezing water tears our cells to shreds.
Cryobabies and artifical wombs are another vector. This is nontrivial too but also, woould you trust the automation? Some AI might have to raise humans hundreds or thousands of years in the future without any context of what's happened in that time. We might be able to communicate with such a ship and update it but should it trust such updates?
You're also creating a whole bunch of people who haven't consented to never see Earth. Generation ships have this problem too to some degree. That has questionable ethics.
As for using the target star to decelerate, that's entirely possible. It's just a solar sail. And that might be the only way we could do interstellar travel anyway because of the reaction mass problem. But solar sails can only accelerate so fast. Travel too fast and you might not have time to decelerate as well. So you're still looking at hundreds of years most likely.
It really seems like we need radical life extension while maintaining quality of life to make these time frames reasonable (relatively). That actually does seem doable.
