Nope. Check again. All the manufacturers are switching to HBM, the market will be flooded with useless soldered on memory that nobody can use outside of running local inference.
If you could get every hardware manufacturer in the world onboard with such an interface, perhaps. But even if 90% of them were onboard there would be edge cases that people and companies would demand support for and there goes your standard.
Drivers exist to ultimately turn actual hardware circuits off and on, often for highly specialized and performance-critical applications, and are often written based on the requirements of a circuit diagram. So any unified driver platform would also involved unified hardware standards, likely to the detriment of performance in some applications, and good luck telling Electrical Engineers around the world to design circuits to a certain standard so the kernel developers can have it easier.
I'm not seeing that happening. Unlike banking and housing there's not much systemic or political risk in letting these companies crash. It's mostly going to hit a very small number of high net worth people who don't have a lot of clout and are oddly disconnected from the rest of the economy.
This is incorrect. A lot of these companies are raising debt to pay for these datacenter build outs. And that debt has already been sold to pension funds. The risk has already been spread. See Blue Owl Capital and how Meta is financing its Hyperion datacenter. They raised 30 billion in debt. Main street is already exposed as those bonds are in funds offered by the usual players BlackRock, Invesco, Pimco etc.
Virtually everyone's 401k is overexposed to these companies due to their insane market caps and the hype around them. If they go every S&P 500 and total US market ETF goes with them, right as the Boomers start retiring en-masse.
Even Vanguard's Total World Index, VT, is roughly 15% MAG 7.
That's not even getting into who's financing whom for what and to whom that debt may be sold to.
It's not just a failure to appreciate, it's an outright demonization of many of these observations as racist/imperialist. One of the prime motivators for this kind of development "aid" is the mistaken belief that the only issue is a lack of resources or external exploitation, and if you just provide the resources and/or remove the exploitation a given place will naturally turn into an enlightened Western nation-equivalent. Maybe with some fun unique cultural festivals, local cuisine, and some harmless, quirky native dances in exotic outfits!
Meanwhile even in the West it's easy to find people who win the lottery and are broke a year later, or rich celebrities/pro athletes who make tons of money and lose it all, or die with far less than you'd expect. Those people are laughed at and/or pitied, because even they are held to to a higher standard than some poor 3rd-worlder who's just a pure victim
The question was "What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?".
As a technical point, being an undocumented immigrant is still not a crime in the USA though it can result in law enforcement actions with impact as severe as criminal penalties. Expired registration or insurance is a civil infraction rather than a crime in some jurisdictions.
Edit: I should clarify why it matters that some of these are civil infractions rather than crimes. Navigation apps that Apple allows, including Apple's own maps app informs users about police and speed cameras, which helps people violate the speed limit without being punished. There doesn't seem to be a coherent principle at work here though.
Well it doesn't help that the media, even when it doesn't lie, often simply refuses to report on various issues depending on the whims of producers.
I'm an older millennial, probably one of the last generations who was formally taught that organizations like the New York Times and CNN were authoritative, bibliography-worthy sources of information due to their reputation and standards. I haven't cared much about what either outlet has produced in years. For every good investigative piece there's a mountain of obvious propaganda or refusal to cover topics they find uncomfortable with any objectivity.
The signal to noise ratio is so low, why pay attention? There's a lot of bad takes on twitter and non-mainstream media (to put it mildly) but it at least makes me aware of more things.
I was a Computer Engineer, so not quite the same, but we got taught about Therac-25 in our Engineering Ethics class when I took it over a decade ago.
Unfortunately Computer Science is still in its too-cool-for-school phase, see OpenAI being sued over recently encouraging a suicidal teenager to kill themself. You'd think it would be common sense for that to be a hard stop outside of the LLM processing the moment a conversation turns to subjects like that, but nope.
For me, that was a moment when I realized that the received wisdom about military things can be just completely wrong.
I had considered myself to be reasonably informed about the F-35, and how "everyone knows" it's a boondoggle. I think this started with a long-form article I read in 2013, "How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane": https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-alli...
Quick googling shows that the Internet is succumbing to the propaganda machines. MSN mindlessly reproduces Iranian article about 2 shot down F-35s but I was unable to find any credible source to confirm that.
The expectation that there would be 'fair and honest' reporting about aircraft losses on the part of an aggressor is not reasonable. Why on Earth would Western powers allow themselves to be so easily embarrassed?
They had some pretty advanced anti aircraft systems. Also they are invisible to radar so they were truly surprised attacks coming out of the blue. So yes, it would be.
They said the same thing about the F-117 in 1999. It was shot down by a Soviet era AA. It was said once, "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed". The same applies here. Comparing bombing Iran to a conflict with China is delusional, put plainly the capabilities of the aircraft have never actually been tested against a competent peer - when it actually matters.
That F-117 was because it was flying every day for months on the same route at the same time and they lucked out with radar catching the plane during the couple seconds it's bomb doors were open.
You're missing the point entirely. The adversary in 1999 was not remotely near peer. So say arrogance there costs you only one plane, which nonetheless becomes infamous as a cautionary tale about superpower hubris. The same against China will be far more fatal. Also, fwiw conflict with China is routinely simulated by American war planners, and to put it plainly there is no longer any plausible scenario where America "wins handily" in the Taiwan strait. Your suggestion that this is even possible is therefore vaguely amusing. Maybe also look to the past decades of American war fighting. When was the last time we felt like we outright "won" a war? When against a peer or near peer? Mission accomplished?
>received wisdom about military things can be just completely wrong.
Consider that what you thought was "received wisdom" was literally Russian propaganda. However, the actual reality was always there, always being patiently insisted by people who knew what they were talking about, who were in fact still discussing actual boondoggles with the program, like the portion of the program that built the tailhook and was terribly run and ineffective at points.
People like Pierre Sprey have been shouting the same lies for decades, and credulous people with zero domain knowledge have been repeating his horse shit forever. He was the same guy who insisted that we should be building really stripped down planes without radar, without missiles, without anything.
He was very much the originator of a lot of anti-F35 FUD, on Russia Today no less. Western media was literally quoting the Russian propaganda firm to tell people how the F35 sucked. He helped push the utter BS that is "Oh, Russia's long wave radar makes stealth not work" which if you don't understand how that's irrelevant and untrue, don't ever have an opinion on modern warplanes.
There's a famous article talking about how terrible the F35 was by interviewing an F16 pilot who had faced it in dogfight training. The article talked at length about how the pilot of the F16 was able to out dogfight the F35. Now, it's sufficient to mention that gun range dogfights are not a thing in modern air combat, or at the very least are not designed for, because as long as your enemy has a single radar or IR missile left, you've already lost. However, beyond that, the F35 wasn't terrible, it's just very unlikely to match the literal king of dogfights. More importantly, the article mentioned something that I'm sure they didn't even realize the importance of.
Even at knife fighting range, the F16 radar assisted gunsight was unable to lock on to the F35. Go look at early jet aircraft gunnery statistics for an idea of how laughably bad dogfighting an F35 would be.
Oh, and that entire test was done with an F35 that wasn't allowed or capable of flying it's full envelope. It was an F35 with a hand tied behind it's back.
Do you have any reason to attribute this to the fact they were F-35s? For comparison, how many jets were lost during "shock and awe"? Israel operates with impunity in Iran all the time, often on the ground. I'm not sure the fact they used F-35s is actually relevant here but if you have a source on that it would be interesting to read. Given the state of Iran it is hard to imagine the same could not be achieved with a last generation aircraft... it would not be surprising if by the time a peer power conflict starts manned aircraft like the F-35 will already be obsolete...
If you look at the Ukraine war the planes are operating from a distance to the frontlines on both sides. The ones close the the front fly in low and then climb and drop their guided distance munitions.
Sounds like an interesting book, though far too many pages for a subject I have only a passing interest in. I would note given the authors affiliations I'm not sure I would ever consider it something that could "set the record straight". If there's a controversy about the program the authors backgrounds don't exactly suggest one will be getting a balanced view. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I appreciate the suggestion anyway.
It’s not at all unbiased, in a journalistic sense, and doesn’t present itself as such (for others: it is written by the now retired program manager of the F-35 development program). But the relevant facts about the performance and cost effectiveness of the plane are a matter of public record, and the book is interesting for providing the inside view on the politics which resulted in the unfair propaganda campaign against it.
You are free to draw your own conclusions of course. I worked for Lockheed previously in my career, and some in my family still do. Though I hold no stock or other ties now (different career, different industry), my experience does lead me to take the authors at face value. There are many issues with Lockheed leadership, but professional integrity is not one of them.
