If there's serious work that can't be effectively done any other way then complex and esoteric cooling setups to overcome those challenges are fine to design and use.
Not sure what needs 1600 cores in one 'chip' but it's probably fairly impressive.
Sure, at some point solving the cooling becomes the path with least resistance. It's just surprisingly hard if you have to account in the reliability and dimensions - so it depends on the application.
In my understanding, normally you have a tiny chip that is inside a larger package and then you can attach that packaged chip to something that takes away the heat. So the ratio of cooling element(package + heat remover) to heating element(the IC) is pretty large. Also, the speed of removing heat from the silicon IC is limited to the heat conductivity of the silicon itself and the materials used to make the package. The silicon itself is not where the heating happens but on the "etched/printed" features on top of the silicon.
Therefore, the amount of heat by heating elements(the tiny wires over the wafer) grow faster than the heat dissipation capacity, which rises the temperature until the unit breaks.
Notice that when the heating elements are close together you lose the horizontal heat gradient advantage since that grows by the perimeter when the heat generating elements grow by the area.
Which means you have to get creative, add moving parts or use more exotic materials, which makes the thing significantly more expensive and less reliable as more things to break are added.
It's different when it's a deliberate conspiracy to mislead consumers, especially when that consumer is choosing services that advertise that a safe vehicle will be used.
If they just stopped showing what plane would be used on the route, maybe they'd get away with using 737-MAX series.
If they say 'it's a 737-800 don't worry about it' and swap in a max every time, or 'fly with us on an airbus' and bring in a boeing death-tube after a purposefully misleading advertisement of a different service...
Terms Of Service only gets you so far. It's not a fraud-dodge.
MBAs are fine, honestly. I have a manager who came up in the industry he works in. He worked at the 'coal-face', understands the issues and has real perspective. He got an MBA later in his career and uses what he learned from that to more effectively communicate up the chain and has some new ideas that he filters through his industry experience to make his team more effective.
Children who get an MBA before getting a job and think they have some magic sauce that solves problems for an industry without respecting the work that's been done and knowing why those problems exist to begin with (maybe they're trade-offs? For a real reason?) are a problem, as are the clueless twats who listen to their breathless assertions as though they carry any weight.
MBAs are taught techniques for optimizing for quality and cost. It's not always an either/or decision.
Even when it is an either/or situation, sometimes it's better to build a product that is half the price for a quarter of the lifespan. A buyer who will use a tool for 30 hours doesn't really care if the service life of a tool has been reduced from 1000 hours to 250 if the price is halved.
I know what you mean, but I think we can say for sure that it's definitely not globally optimal to produce durable goods (of any kind) that are half the cost but a quarter the lifespan. Half price for half utility is fine, but half price for a quarter utility is just pure waste -- even if you don't need the tool for 1000 hours, you can resell it to somebody who will use it for the next 970 hours (or the next 30, after which they sell it again). There are transaction costs here which make it a little more complex, but in a society where this was common, they would be driven down by scale -- more pawn and consignment shops would pop up, culture would teach people how the process works, etc. (By the way, there are also extra transaction costs for the people who need 1000 hours of tool time but have to buy it 30 hours at a time.)
Any system that encourages this behavior (i.e the one we have) is obviously not a winning system.
1. hiring each other and bloating bureaucracy in healthcare and education and other industries jacking up prices that werent expensive before
2. come up with ideas like 'shrinkflation' and 'planned obsolescence
3. reducing quality and making products unrepairable so we have massive waste in landfills and things like a giant pacific garbage patch
4. purchasing quality brands , parasiting the brand name, and making the actual product shitty
5. hollowing out every industry in quality and jobs...making private equity monopolies so theres no competition and then hiring more MBAs.
What you call 'optimizing quality and cost' I call 'trying the fuck the consumer to the maximum amount without them noticing'. But, to be fair, those are the same thing.
Just my observations. Capitalism is becoming a zombie and MBAs are the cordyceps.
What the issue is, is that we’re essentially in the third ‘wave’ of US economic change post WW2 manufacturing boom.
Post WW2, the United States was the only manufacturing economy that hadn’t been bombed to smithereens, has not only little to no real debt, but a lot of debtors that would repay them, and had massive amounts of undeveloped land ripe for development, and a major new manufacturing base looking for things to do.
This allowed the US to become the world’s reserve currency (along with gold) in the Bretton Woods agreement in ‘44. That lasted until ‘71.
At around the same time, the economies of Western Europe and Asia had mostly recovered, and they were starting to catch up on manufacturing to compete with the US.
This led to increasing competitive pressures with US manufacturing, and increasing incentives to go towards Globalization and outsourcing to chase the cheap labor and more willing to compete manufacturers in these locations. Switching the US to a ‘knowledge economy’ was the natural progression.
That easy money is mostly gone now, and the US is also no longer far ahead in many areas on knowledge.
China in particular is starting to come close on almost all metrics. If Europe has a recession, their primary disadvantage (cost) may turn into an advantage.
So then the US is much more on par with everyone else - for the first time in several generations.
And that causes quite a rude awakening economically, as now the US potentially has real and actual competitors it isn’t 5 steps ahead of already.
MBA’ism is because long ago the economy switched from ‘actually leaps and bounds ahead of competitors’ to optimization. As most of the actual structural differences have now equalized, and we’re down to who can make it cheaper/simpler. No one wants a 5 lb drill that costs $100 if they can have a 2lb drill that costs $50 and does the jobs they want well.
> MBA’ism is because long ago the economy switched from ‘actually leaps and bounds ahead of competitors’ to optimization
False. Many companies make more money now than ever. American GDP and technology is leaps and bounds ahead of other countries as well.
MBA's exist to create shareholder value while fucking the consumer and the laborers as much as possible without getting into trouble.
melanine in baby food, and suicide nets outside of factories, for example, are cost optimization strategies that didnt work out.
I can just picture an MBA running the cost/benefit numbers in an excel spreadsheet comparing treating the workers better versus putting suicide nets outside the windows.
And this isn't even a new thing: it was absolutely true (in fact, more true) way back in the 1980s and 90s, and really started in the mid-to-late 1970s. American cars were utter garbage: poorly engineered, poorly performing, and poorly manufactured, with terrible quality.
So why do people seem to assume that other American-made stuff in that era was so well-made? Sure, there's a few shining examples such as HP test equipment and printers, but the American auto industry was churning out truly bad products, so why isn't it also assumed that other domestic industries were plagued by the same poor standards and management?
It’s all relative. There was competition to compare against, so one can say ‘terrible’ vs ‘good’. Otherwise, it just ‘is’.
Notably, compact transistor radios were quite a marvel - and came out of Japan around that time too. Same with the Walkman, shortly afterwards.
Tools were more commonly American made, and were very heavy - but often durable. German equivalents were notably more expensive but ‘better’. Chinese made tools were originally terrible quality, but by around the early to mid 2000’s that changed.
I forget exactly when, but Mitutoyo (Japanese) started being notably ‘better’ in what - the 90s? Hitachi made power tools are pretty good, but I think that’s been about the last 10 years.
TVs were at first terrible from Asia, then started to get much better. By the 90s, they were pretty much all Asian manufactured no?
chips, household products....what you're saying is manufacturing has left the US.
fungible shitty unnecessary goods have rock bottom prices. costs of things human beings need to live like education/training, health care, food housing have skyrocketed.
I completely agree with you that getting off the gold standard and letting a leprechaun like Yellen skyrocket inflation to cover for bad political mistakes, is a terrible idea and 1971 is a huge inflection point in United States on numerous economic graphs and indicators, as we've both seen the website.
Keep in mind the late 60s were also when immigration started it's upward trajectory as well with the 1965 immigration act, and now we're letting in the equivalent of an entire new U.S. state every year.
The Bretton woods change was to allow stimulation of the economy - because things at home were losing momentum (relatively speaking) as other countries manufacturing bases and economies recovered from the damage from WW2. It was a way of keeping the US a few steps ahead.
Printing gold backed dollars quickly doesn’t work very well when you can’t increase the rate of mining gold quickly. Non gold backed dollars are a lot easier.
As long as goods and services can be made cheaper every year, it works well since inflation isn’t felt badly - there aren’t any supply restrictions where something is going to get noticeably too expensive.
All the things I talked about though all have that issue - they can’t be made cheaper somewhere else. someone can only build so many houses in LA before there is literally no more room, and someone building a house in Shanghai doesn’t help anyone in SF live closer to work. Building a new college/university in Vietnam isn’t going to help a kid in Oregon get their degree.
We’ve been exporting inflation because it’s worked. But when other countries stop being so much cheaper, or costs of critical things for the population finally exceed affordability, it doesn’t.
Yellen, Powell, and others are just following the rules and mandate they are given.
Counteroffers are 'stem the skills bleed' at best. People who take counteroffers were annoyed enough to look in the first place, and know they're valued enough elsewhere to get a market rate. I've heard that even if someone accepts a counteroffer and stays they're very unlikely to still be there 12 months later.
The company can use that time to figure out what that person does and make sure when they leave it's not as painful and abrupt.
I've seen a bunch of US companies setting up offices here in New Zealand and hiring SRE/DevOps types. Our wages are garbage so it's much cheaper for them! Plus our timezone means having staff here leads to much less on-call requirement for US/UK staff.
> the Boeing Dreamliner for example is shockingly uncomfortable to fly in
Struggling with this comment, I do a lot of long-haul and the dreamliner is a clear differentiator on arrival due to cabin pressure and humidity. Boeing seems to have made a lot of mistakes over the years but I seek out a dreamliner for anything over 8 hours.
Perhaps you are the victim of the airline more than the aircraft itself?
The 787 is nice, but the competing A350 and A380 both have similar pressurisation and I haven't noticed humidity issues on either. I think the 787 was a significant step up on the 777, but compared to modern alternatives I think it probably is slightly less comfortable.
> Park praised three aircraft types in particular: the Airbus A380, the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350.
> The 787 and A350 nudge the humidity up to approximately 25% — an incremental upgrade, to be sure, but an upgrade nonetheless. That's because their composite-materials fuselages won't rust like metal ones would under increased humidity.
Haven't been on an A350 but definitely enjoyed the other two for long-haul. There's a noticeable difference when you spend enough time in that tube, Sydney to London is 24hr's straight with a short time off the plane halfway in the middle of the night. Long-haul is the default for Australians travelling internationally.
Yeah I live in London and my partner lives in Melbourne. Been doing 3x a year since covid.
Something that's fascinating to me though, and which puts a lot of online aviation discourse (that mostly comes from US domestic flights) into perspective, is that the short hops we sometimes do like Melbourne -> Hobart, is that they are immediately noticeable as far less comfortable. Apart from sleep effects, 1 hour of domestic flying leaves me feeling worse than 14 hours of long haul, and I think it's just seats and leg room. Economy (and cheap!) long haul flights are not actually that bad, at least for me as a 6' tall guy.
Same here: lot of long haul. Know of all the rumors about bad 787 engineering. Still much prefer 787 over alternatives because I find it significantly more comfortable.
I've done a few New Zealand to Houston trips on the Dreamliner and I find the vibration, temperature and humidity to be totally hostile compared to the A350.
I was pleasantly surprised recently that a much smaller airliner the Embraer 195 had much more cabin comfort than a 737. Considering the smaller size I was expecting the opposite.
