Yes, and good ones were worth every penny. You can book things online for yourself, but what do you know about the area you are visiting? An agent can recommend things that you would never even think of as being something needing consideration. Even just a phone number to call if you get in a bind.
The hope is these machines will reduce the number of steps to produce advanced chips (<3nm logic and DRAM), and hopefully the time and money cost of production will be lower compated to the current lithography techniques. A lot of people are still skeptical because of the cost of the machines, the potential low yield, high energy consumption etc.. So we need to see till fabs adopt this (if ever) and if it's the way to go.
If this turns out to be a dead end it'll be a big problem for ASML at the first instance. Also it's going to be good news for China since the technology gap will not be opening further.
If this turns out to be a dead end, Intel will be in even deeper shit. They've been buying up all of ASML's High NA machines before the technique has been completely proven. It's a bold move.
I don't think they will last that long. TSMC could bring 7nm, 5nm and 3nm to market because Apple just straight out funded these processes with agreements to buy the capacity exclusively for the first year or so. Even Nvidia couldn't access it till now (if I didn't miss it). Companies are interested in 18A as a second supplier, mainly to increase capacity on advanced nodes. This though requires everything to go better than the plan. Intel wasn't a foundry for others, so they don't have the experience to support different companies needs (from design flow to IP availability like standard cells, ESD, Serdes etc). TSMC doesn't only develop a process but develop all the stuff around it to serve a diverse set of customers. Now, if Intel gets 18A right it's great. It doesn't mean everyone jump on it and book huge amounts of capacity. If the design fliw isn't streamlined and it takes too long to tape-out adoption will not be there. Global Founderies 14nm and 12nm are great examples of this.
Intel is all-in on High NA EUV to try and regain the lead. TSMC and Samsung also have plans for High NA, but not as aggressive, because High NA is not a proven technology, but it will be required to prevent Moore's Law from grinding to a complete halt.
IMEC has just taken steps to prove that High NA can work. They are a European semiconductor R&D company; they don't operate any commercial fabs of their own.
NA is numerical aperture and physically relates (by the uncertainty principle) to the attainable resolution of an imaging system. Resolution scales linearly with NA and inversely linearly with wavelength. High NA EUV means EUV scanners with a higher NA so higher resolving power than the current generation. The "normal NA" for EUV is 0.33. High NA means 0.55. (These are EUV marketing terms; ArF immersion tools went to NA 1.35, but using 15x longer wavelengths).
The economic significance is that current leading edge processes have to use multiple patterning with normal NA machines to achieve the necessary resolution. Multiple patterning means multiple exposures with different masks on the same spot creating interference patterns. This halves / quarters etc. throughput and decreases yields (every exposure needs to be flawless).
High NA means you just need one exposure and mask (per layer).
That's the traditional course of action. As long as it's financially sound they will at least try it.
At that point making smaller patterns might not be the biggest issue. Vias are becoming s bottleneck and proven to be hard to scale down. If we cannot fibd a new way to open vias reliably and with low resistence it will be bottleneck for scaling down.
Yeah but then it's a bit the end of the road, since there are no workable refractive media for EUV, not even on paper, which categorically rules out higher NA optics, which was half the reason for why ArF was able to be used for about 20 years.
High NA EUV is the next generation of EUV machine that is able to make features that are approximately 50% smaller than regular EUV. As such, this roughly means higher capacity RAM (this will probably go into production sometime around DDR6 or DDR7)
> What I'd be more interested in is, does this also mean bigger/denser L1-L3 caches?
Just a semi-engineer here, not a semi-conductor engineer, but probably not. L1-L3 are on the die, so you'd just be making those at the same time as the rest of your CPU die, so they'll be made with the same process as that is. Which, once that process is the high NA UV, means yes, denser L1-L3. Though I wouldn't be too surprised to see an L3/L4 chiplet made with an older process for low-end CPUs... which might mean smaller cache?
The more important reason this doesn't mean denser caches is that the caches are SRAM not DRAM which are petty much completely different processes. High NA EUV also will likely yield higher density caches, but this is mostly unrelated.
From my experience, NERF works great, but depends on highly accurate camera location information. Unless the VR device has this baked in, one must run a Colmap-style or SFM-style process to generate those camera extrinsics. Is there anything special HybridNeRF does around this?
"Ari Quan, a 19-year-old Emory first-year student from Columbia, S.C., who uses the pronouns they and them, acknowledged not having followed the conflict in Gaza especially closely, but said... "
> NYT is trying to paint the protestors as idiots.
This context is important. Indeed, many of the protestors are simply violent, uneducated, unsophisticated and weak (easily emotionally manipulated) thugs who are convinced the truth is 100% with them, and that it is therefore somehow legitimate to use terrorism and intimidation tactics on campus.
> In many students’ eyes, the war in Gaza is linked to other issues, such as policing, mistreatment of Indigenous people, racism and the impact of climate change.
I think your reading of the NYT's intentions is rather far off. Especially since the part of Ari's quote that you cut off is "...closely , but said there was considerable overlap between the movement for greater justice in policing and pro-Palestinian sentiment. They were moved to join the demonstrations on campus after seeing their friend pushed to the ground by the police."
Regardless of where you stand in the situation, this talking point always seems so asinine to me. Like do you actually believe that the protesters are simply ignorant of the social policies of Hamas (or support them)? Or do you just not believe it’s possible to hold a position between “the IDF should carpet bomb Gaza” and “Hamas should run the entire Levant”? It seems pretty straightforward to me that you can advocate for self-determination of a people while simultaneously recognizing that some of those people may hold opinions you dislike.
Actually, "Hamas should run the entire Levant" does seem to be the view of a lot of these protesters. And "opinions you dislike" is an oddly mild characterization of the actual slaughter of gays that happens under Hamas and other Islamist regimes.
You are nit picking while ignoring their larger point: just because a state has regressive policies doesn’t mean it deserves to be oppressed, controlled, and effectively destroyed.
Israel’s terror is not helping queer people in Gaza, full stop.
> Actually, "Hamas should run the entire Levant" does seem to be the view of a lot of these protesters
I suppose we must be talking to entirely different groups of protestors. I've never heard, read, or seen any evidence of direct or indirect support for Hamas at any of these events. Indeed most of my interactions with protestors indicate the opposite: many seem to be under the belief that Palestinian support for Hamas will be weaker in a fully independent Palestine, and part of their participation in the movement is predicated on that (particularly among the Palestinians I've spoken with). But there's not much I can really argue about if that's what you've encountered in your actual personal experience; I guess the people you have spoken with must be as stupid as you think.
The problem is they are delusional and don't know the history/complexity in the situation. To be clear: I'm 100% pro Palestinian state and have been since the 80s (Israeli). Still am.
Hamas is the main reason a Palestinian state doesn't exist. It's the reason the far right rose in Israel. As long as it exists the cycle of death would continue.
Hamas are currently delaying the ceasefire offer that was on the table because of these protests.
That ceasefire offer is for 40 days, not a permanent one, like they—as well as the UN—have been asking for. And Netanyahu is on record stating that he will invade Rafah regardless of whether this ceasefire offer is signed or not. You can’t really blame them for being skeptical here.
Ceasfires have a tendency to extend. If the hostages are returned Netanyahu won't be able to invade Rafah and this round will effectively be over. Forces will be withdrawn and it would be too much to restart the war effort.
Plus, if Hamas actually does release the hostages, every country, including the US, would demand Israel back off. I don't think there's any doubt on that by anyone, not even Hamas (who seem pretty apt at predicting responses of the West in any case).
Hamas wants war. That's what they're getting paid for. Gaza is not really economically viable anyway, so this is the only way they're getting paid. Billions for a constant stream of dead Palestinians.
If Hamas releases the hostages, we have no idea what would happen. Israel has shown it self to be very unpredictable and unreliable in following expectations from the international community, and the USA has shown it self to have an unconditional backing of whatever Israel does.
I absolutely think that Hamas should release the hostages, immediately and unconditionally, but at the same time we have to be realistic that it is probably not going to happen without a ceasefire, and the non-civilian hostages are probably not going to be released without a permanent ceasefire and a prisoner swap.
Regardless of whether Hamas wants continued war or not (which I kind of doubt as most Hamas members have civilian family members victims of the ongoing genocide) we have to realize that Israel is the main actor here and is committing a genocide. Israel, with a backing of the USA, has consistently refused ceasefires in the past, even when Hamas has shown in the past that they do release hostages during a ceasefire.
I think the January ceasefire negotiations are very telling of how things usually go. Israel wants to continue the genocide and Hamas wants to keep the hostages, there is some settlements and concessions made, weeks go by, Hamas attends negotiations, Israel boycotts them, US state department blames Hamas for not wanting the deal, Hamas declares they want the deal, Netanyahu keeps insisting the war will continue regardless of deal, UN says they should make the deal, the deal falls apart, the US state department blames Hamas, the UN votes at the Security Council for a ceasefire resolution, the US veto’s it.
In an environment like this, there is no way Hamas will release the hostages. Israel has to be the one that takes the first step, regardless of how unfair it may seem to you.
This is a very creative re-imagining of reality. Israel has always respected ceasefires. The last time one was broken was in 2014 where Hamas killed Israeli soldiers during a ceasefire.
The US cut off Israel multiple times including in the 80s. If you go back further you can find a point in time where the UK and US had a plot to bomb Israel.
How ceasefires work is through a promise of hostage releases. E.g. on the last ceasefire we had we were promised all the women and children. Hamas didn't deliver on all of them and frequently delayed release to test the patience of Israel. They are a suicidal, religious cult.
> which I kind of doubt as most Hamas members have civilian family members victims of the ongoing genocide
First, there's no genocide.
Second. The head of Hamas posted a photo of him delivering the news of his sons death in the conflict to his wife. They were both smiling at the news in the photo. Hamas are not western people with western sensibilities and you should stop thinking of them in these terms.
They consider every death that's a part of Jihad (including children, including direct family) to be a blessing. That's insane. They purposefully started this conflict and are purposefully extending it in order to manipulate American sentiment. They understand that the west is soft of heart, that it's easy to manipulate us.
I’m sorry keep returning to this, but seeing today’s headlines in Haaretz kind of proofs my point (or at least you should be able to understand my point of view from it):
> Israel-Hamas Hostage Negotiations Hit Critical Juncture as Netanyahu's Statement Jeopardizes Progress
This is very similar to how the failed Qatar brokered ceasefire deal turned out in January/February [1]. It was also a temporary ceasefire with extension clauses, and all but ready to be signed and put into effect, meanwhile Netanyahu kept trying to vandalize it with statements of how Israel would not comply. And despite all that Hamas agreed to it, and it looked like it would come into effect, but at the last moment Israel withdrew and the genocide continued.
It may be true that Hamas is a bad actor in these negotiations, and it may be that they bear a ton of fault for there not being a ceasefire already. But as today’s headlines prove, Israel’s responsibility is at least as much.
Unless I totally misremember, Hamas sabotaged this deal. Not by threatening to not comply, but by actually not complying with the deal. The deal finally broke down when Hamas stopped being late with hostage releases, and actually canceled hostage releases.
Netanyahu's threats were probably an attempt at rescuing the deal, that even worked for a while.
I was talking about the failed negotiations in January/February 2024, you are talking about the temporary ceasefire in November 2023. So not the same deal. You can actually read about it in the BBC source I cited.
But lets talk about the 2023 temporary ceasefire. The deal never broke down, instead it expired. It was extended a couple of times, but negotiations to extend it a third time broke down. It did not end because of failure to comply. Neither Hamas nor Israel stopped releasing hostages all together until after the deal expired. I don’t know where you read that.
The week long pause freed 105 of Hamas’ captives, while Israel freed 240 Palestinians. The deal called for the release of 50 hostages by Hamas and 150 imprisoned Palestinians by Israel. The extension called for 20 of Hamas’ hostages to be released and 60 more Palestinians to be freed by Israel.
So in total Hamas promised to release 70 hostages but released 105 (35 more than promised; including 24 foreign nationals), while Israel promised to release 210 but actually released 240 (30 more then promised). Israel also promised to allow 200 trucks of aid into Gaza every day the truce stays in effect. I don’t have the number of trucks that actually entered, but I believe this was also met (though some truck drivers still complained about unnecessary and lengthy checks at the border).
Before the ceasefire came into effect, both Biden, Sunak, and Scholz had voiced their opposition to the ceasefire. Several Israeli officials had also voiced oppositions to it. Hamas had supported it. Unlike in January though, Netanyahu did not oppose it, but rather stayed silent.
During the ceasefire, Netanyahu wowed to continue the fighting and opposed any extensions to it. The USA on the other hand switch their stance and now supported extensions to it.
On December 1, the truce ended. Hamas blamed Israel for not wanting to release more Palestinians, while the USA blamed Hamas for not wanting to give them a list with names of some of the captives. We will have to wait for some documents to be released before we know what really happened in Doha day. Hamas then lunched rocket attacks onto Israel. If you wanted to blame Hamas for anything here, those rocket attacks are a better target then some fabrication about not failure to meet demands of negotiations. Israel promptly resumed their attacks the same day, with 180 Palestinians martyred that day, including in Khan Younis, who’s residents where then forced to flee to Rafah, where most still live.
On December 2, Netanyahu ordered the Israeli delegation to leave Qatar, which they did, and any prospects of further extensions were over. Since then Netanyahu has been staunchly opposed to any more ceasefire, and hostage negotiations, including the January prospects, and including the current prospects.
Then, refusal (with "between the lines" that Hamas wasn't in control of the hostages, and it was more that Hamas "leaders" weren't actually in control of the hostages than a case of refusing a deal)
"Hamas then (in response to hostage negotiations) launched rocket attacks onto Israel ... Netanyahu has been staunchly opposed to any more ceasefire and hostage negotiations"
I mean you're not reasonable. Hamas, quite literally, blew up negotiations, again and again and again and again. They killed, massacred, exploded, destroyed, WHATEVER they could, every attempt at negotiations since the month they were created, almost 5 decades back. Blowing up negotiations with massacres is literally the reason they exist, initially the Oslo accords. Which means I will need A LOT of VERY DIRECT AND CLEAR evidence before I will even consider it was the Israeli side that ended negotiations.
Israel were equally delayed in releasing their prisoners as well. And skirmishes happens on both sides of the table. And despite all that, the terms of the ceasefire—at least as related to the hostages—were met, and thensom, on both sides, and despite all this, they still extended the ceasefire a couple of times. Meaning that neither the delays, nor the skirmishes were the reason they failed to extend it the third time.
Nowhere in your sources does it say Hamas nor Israel failed to deliver on promise, only that it was taking slower then expected. Your BBC article even cites the reason given by Hamas was slowness in delivering aid (we now know this is true). In fact all of your sources were published prior to the failure to extend the truce, which happened on December 1st. So I still don’t see where you read that the reason for the failure to extend were non-delivering on promises by Hamas.
The truth is, it may very well be the fault of Hamas that the deal wasn’t extended. But we will not know that until Qatar releases documents which explains what really took place at the negotiating table on December 1st. Until then we are just speculating, and given what we know, it is equally likely that both parties are equally to blame.
Either the sources are wrong, or—more likely—they don’t exist. I find it suspicious that you can’t seem to provide me with any. Wikipedia has a different story, and provides plenty of sources:
Sure. And we went out to demonstrate against that. There were huge demonstrations in Israel just last night (as there are every week but this was larger) trying to force the government to take the deal.
Netanyahu is terrible and his partners are worse. But unlike Hamas there are ways we can pressure them and also ways to remove them at most by the next election cycle. When people demonstrate in US campuses this strengthens Netanyahu who can then lump them as "useful idiots" and "antisemitism".
Notice the demonstrations to release the hostages, those are the exact anti Netanyahu demonstrations that work. Israelis can't lump them as "uninformed" or "antisemitism". The result is far more effective as it puts pressure on him to reach a deal while keeping the blame on Hamas as well.
The problem is that people who Hamas (or Iran) would literally stone to death, choose to take their word over the word of Israel. I get why, they are constantly drowned in misinformation and memes from one side and are completely blinded to the fact that it might not be true.
Yeah, and self describing yourself as "...not having followed the conflict in Gaza especially closely..." and then joining a demonstration for a cause you did not elect to educate yourself on doesn't make it particularly hard.
If you ask that everyone who joins a movement also be knowledgeable about their movement, then we might not even have the numbers for a React conference. That's the reality of our world, that whether you're on the right side or the wrong side, there must also be a lot of uninformed on all sides. The energy behind large movements connects all manners of people, some of whom depend entirely on social networks to disseminate the right positions for them.
For the average person I would not have expected them to follow anything in foreign policy closely. Not even one thing.
Two differences: react (and other) conferences are intended to serve a dual mandate of advocacy for a specific method and general education of attendees who may not be knowledgeable about the topic at hand. Even if I write spring boot/asp.net core all day, learning about react isn't exactly a big deal.
In the case of protests, you seek to advocate for a specific course of action. It would be more akin to me sending a JEP or whatever the equivalent is for react. I would rightfully be called foolish for doing so, as I know very little about react and should choose to educate myself before attempting to advocate for a specific course of action.
Do these publications have a rule that every article needs a photo, even if it’s irrelevant? I don’t actually want to see a stock (or AI) photo that adds nothing to the journalism.
reply