At least for me, I agree with both of the things you said. RISCV is a significant improvement on a lot of of the status quo in situations where it is currently getting design wins. But it also could’ve been a lot better in simple ways that should have been thought of.
Maybe. I'm not sure if the original author's intent was to say how risc-v could be better or to say it is bad and people should use other (proprietary) ISAs instead.
I am sorry if my point was not clear enough. I don’t advise anybody to stay away from it. In many ways it is good enough.
I just think that if you were designing something from scratch, you could actually learn from past lessons, rather than publishing a document saying you learned, and then demonstrating conclusively that you didn’t.
Before this, the author has never recommended others stay away from RISC-V, just stated their own distaste for it and a personal preference to use any other ISA if given a choice.
Yeah the complaints in the original article are valid, but it's like complaints about Android or iOS. There are plenty of valid complaints against either, but neither is strictly better than the other.
What does it mean to be “smart”? I could list a ton of synonyms just to highlight not only the ambiguity of such a claim, but also its relative worthlessness:
Or, here’s another question, who’s the smartest person in Las Vegas? Is it the person who won the most money? The best poker player? The most successful real estate broker? The one who breaks the most laws for financial gain without getting caught? Maybe the guy who repairs the elevators?
We nevertheless have a concept of smartness and able to judge - imperfectly and subjectively - other people on this perceived dimension.
Take, for example, Elon Musk in SpaceX. Elon knew enough of rocket science to assemble the early team and participate as a self-assigned chief designer. In many cases such actions would qualify a person as a smart one.
Yes, it's hard to objectively measure - very hard perhaps. Yet we can still allow that some of those billionaires are smart at least by some reasonable measures.
My point is that the evaluation of Musk in that particular passage seem to be also subjective, and other people might have other opinions. We don't see good evidence here - and have some kind of counter-evidence elsewhere.
> Take, for example, Elon Musk in SpaceX. Elon knew enough of rocket science to assemble the early team and participate as a self-assigned chief designer. In many cases such actions would qualify a person as a smart one.
There’s so much mythologizing about this man and his companies that I can’t imagine taking anything at face value. He seems to frequently put it all on red and it’s worked out for him. Recently I learned a bit about a guy named H L Hunt and the similarities are a bit striking. But H L Hunt didn’t spend nearly as much money ensuring there was mythology around his character.
My point is, they’re smart, so what? What does that actually mean, and does that matter? I went to a top state university and was immediately humbled by people who were unimaginably smarter than me in so many capacities. I don’t particularly think I should go back to those peers and ask them if they think if democracy is a failed system or whatever the pet billionaire issue du jour is. I would imagine my Russian polylingual polymath lab partner that carried my ass through accelerated chemistry while getting elected to student government is quite a bit smarter than Musk as well, judging solely on how articulate the two are comparatively.
I think a good analysis should be done with numbers in text - or oral? - form. For this video, claiming that ~70 tons/sec needs that much more powerful pumps than Shuttle engine's 500 kg/s doesn't seem to mention the fact that power is proportional not only to flow, but to pressure difference as well; other questions could also appear.
If the companies find a new way to make their products cheaper to produce and their services cheaper to provide - will it lead to lower prices as well?
I think it’s more useful to apply OP’s question to about real, established businesses that already price products at the market rate. Not companies riding an unsustainable speculative bubble and playing pricing games in a desperate attempt to attract and retain users who they can later upsell or raise prices on to show “growth” and keep getting investor money.
The television in my living room is cheaper than the one I had in 2005, and the insane part is that it was cheaper to buy before you even bother adjusting for inflation. I owned a Zenith 42" in 2005 I had purchased for $1400. The Samsung 65" I have now cost $649 I believe
They are slowly elastic. The only way to speed up the re-pricing is a recession where people lose their jobs and are forced to sell. Otherwise, it's mainly young people entering their first house phase that get impacted - which is exactly what we've seen.
I earn a reasonable income, but the reality is even though I live alone and don't really think about where I spend my money finances are good. I could quite easily save a fair bit more than I currently do if I wanted to.
My experience won't align with everyone, but it is enough for me to feel somewhat dismissive of people who say life sucks. At some point, if you aren't earning enough and/or spend too much, that's on you. Some of the people I know of who complain about finances feel they should not have to care about their spending, or have "luxuries" that are actually very expensive (going out drinking alcohol is a big one where I'm at). The reality is anything that takes human Labor in a developed economy is very expensive.
Full-flow staged combustion is a rather logical - and not even particularly useful, we're talking about small percentage points - extension of staged flow combustion, and staged combustion is a rather obvious change to open-cycle schema - and I'm hyperbolizing just a little bit here.
Yes, it brings effects, and it's a cool technology. But saying that at least idea - or results - are fundamentally changing rocket engines... I think that's a stretch.
There’s nothing logical about trying to make non-oxidizing metal that can handle thousands of degrees of temperature, hundreds of bars of pressure, and a nearly pure-oxygen environment? The US essentially made fun of the Soviets for even trying. If you think it’s logical, you don’t understand the tech at all. It’s a borderline miracle, let alone simply “logical”.
Literal rocket scientists spent decades and careers saying it was a waste of time, and random people with zero expertise try to downplay it. I’ll never understand being THIS cocky is a subject one has clearly never touched.
ISS collects ~250 kW solar power. All of that needs eventually to be dissipated - the energy removed by communication radiowaves is small. ISS routinely handles this thermal question for decades.
There is nothing magical with cooling in space. Just a different environment - a rather well studied already, we send satellites to space for some 70 years almost. Saying there is no solution is incorrect - we have options, we have numbers, we can point to concrete questions and answers.
Maybe I'm missing something important so far...