Ah right, thanks for the correction!

That depends on Trump giving a shit about protecting anyone. I wouldn’t be surprised at any outcome.

Doesn’t really apply in this case.

TSMC charges per wafer. If yield improves, that means each wafer will have higher quality chips, on average. Which could mean less junk chips and/or more chips that will make it to a higher bin (which could mean more speed or less that needs to be fused off due to a flaw).

Also, you’re not the customer they are talking about. They mean their customers, like Apple, AMD, Nvidia, etc.

Though you might see some savings because higher yields means inventory levels increase, which could mean a lower optimal price on the supply/demand curve. Even if the MSRP is lower than the optimal price, it would still mean less opportunity to scalp the chips for profit.

It’s a story that’s been repeating for decades now. Company creates a new market with new useful tech, run by engineers passionate about the tech, experiences exceptional growth, becomes large corporation, much larger than any competition. Uses relative wealth to keep competition from catching up. Eventually saturates market to the point where market growth doesn’t finance the growing R&D expenses (which were tuned assuming previous rate of growth would just continue). At some point, profit increases start coming from business/marketing side of things more than engineering side, resulting in MBAs and marketers getting more promotions and eventually control of the company. Then tech stagnates because they don’t think investing in R&D is as worthwhile. Also aren’t able to prioritize what R&D is still happening effectively because they don’t really understand the tech as well as engineers. But they tread water and even increase profits because they dominate the market.

Until competition that is engineering focused (often also made up of former engineers from the dominant company) catches up or creates a new market that makes theirs start going obsolete. Suddenly trouble, then they either pivot to quietly supporting businesses that continue using their products, or gets in trouble with the law because of increasingly anticompetitive practices.

Xerox could have owned the PC market but thought they could continue being a household name sticking with copiers. IBM outsourced everything and people eventually realized they didn’t need IBM. FoxconnFairchild had two groups of engineers leave and create Intel and AMD when they were dissatisfied with how management was running the company. And now Intel coasted while AMD floundered and was completely unprepared for TSMC and AMD to make large technical leaps and surpass them.

All they need to do is hold out and survive until China invades Taiwan and the chip foundry game will change overnight. I bet they’ll even get free access to TSMC patents just to try to get the west back into the chip lead. They won’t be allowed to fail at that point.

Though I don’t see the consumer semiconductor industry thriving after that.

Yeah, it is kinda both in general. Though in this case, the math about this is well-defined: it’s possible to increase a percentage either with addition or multiplication and both of those can make sense, just the words we would use to describe them are the same so it ends up ambiguous when you try going from math to English or vice versa.

But the fact that switching between communication language and a formal language/system like math isn’t clear cut does throw a bit of a wrench in the “math doesn’t lie”. It’s pretty well-established that statistics can be made to imply many different things, even contradictory things, depending on how they are measured and communicated.

This can apply to science more generally, too, because the scientific process depends on hypotheses expressed in communication language, experiments that rely on interpretation of the hypothesis, and conclusions that add another layer of interpretation on the whole thing. Science doesn’t lie but humans can make mistakes when trying to do science. And it’s also pretty well established that science media can often claim things that even the scientists it’s trying to report on will disagree strongly with.

Though I will clarify that the “both” part is just on the translation. Formal systems like math are intended to be explicit about what they say. If you prove something in math, it’s as true as anything else is in that system, assuming you didn’t make a mistake in the proof.

Though even in a formal system, not everything that is true is provable, and it is still possible to express paradoxes (though I’d be surprised if it was possible to prove a paradox… And it would break the system if you could).

Could have a system where a government site cryptographically signs a birth year plus random token provided by the site you want to use.

Step 1: access site
Step 2: site sends random token
Step 3: user’s browser sends token plus user authentication information
Step 4: gov site replies with a string containing birth year, token, and signature
Step 5: send that string to the other site where it uses the government’s public key to verify the signature, showing the birth year is attested by the government

No need to have any direct connection with the user’s identity and the site or been the gov and site.

Funny thing is this is a language issue, not a math issue.

I wonder if their intent was to help people find a good VPN or to be the place people who want to find a VPN go and then give up looking for one.

Seems like the best way to get people to hate something isn’t by going around telling people that they should hate it. It’s by becoming a spokesman for that thing and telling people they should love it while making them hate you (and everything associated with you).

It may be helpful to read up on food-borne illnesses and their vectors. I say this because what I interpret from your comment is that rural areas are “dirty” and that right-leaning areas are somehow “dirtier” by virtue of being lax in food safety.

Yeah, I meant the association between right-leaning and “probably thinks safety regulations are a government overreach and waste of time that can be ignored if you can get away with it”. And non-existent rights for immigrant workers, including unhygienic living conditions imposed on them.

And an assumption that choices between profit or safety will be more likely to err on the side of profit than safety if they believe they can get away with it, with the “fuck you, I got mine” mindset seeming to be stronger on the right.

Thanks for the comment and info though. My own comment wasn’t really fair or useful.

Considering farms are pretty much exclusively in rural areas and how rural areas generally lean politically, it’s a testament to the human immune system that food poisoning deaths aren’t more widespread. Or maybe a testament to the usefulness of food production regulations. Guessing we’ll find out which one by 2030, assuming it will be allowed to be reported on.

Or maybe new conspiracy theories will pop up over the next few years, oddly aligning with current health and safety science.

EVEN THOUGH VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM, TURNS OUT THEY’VE BEEN PREVENTING LIBERAL DISEASES THAT CAUSE BABIES TO COUGH THEMSELVES TO DEATH THIS WHOLE TIME!

NOT BRINGING MILK TO JUST UNDER A BOIL MIGHT MAKE IT SAFER TO CONSUME BUT IS HURTING THE OIL COMPANIES THAT GIVE US THE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL (WHEN YOU HAVE AN APPROVED REASON TO TRAVEL)!

SOLAR PANELS STEAL ENERGY FROM THE SUN, REDUCING ITS EXPECTED LIFETIME, BUT BRAND NEW TRUMP PANELS GENERATE FREE ELECTRICITY FROM THE VACUUM WHEN EXPOSED TO DIRECT LIGHT!

But can he illegally impose them?

That’s fair and to be clear, I wasn’t intending to contradict what you were saying but to clarify the scope of my comment was intended to be “anything in a package with a label where you trust that the contents match the label”.

I’m not even talking about the fun drugs, but things like a bottle of vitamin supplements, over the counter, or prescription medication. Sure, you can test a batch, but will that mean testing one pill out of each bottle? Or could consistency drop enough that one pill might not say much about the others in the bottle?

Will testing resources get stretched to the point where many won’t be able to afford them if we’ll need to test each bottle of pills we buy to make sure the producer didn’t just stick a nice label on lead pills to make a quick buck and disappear in the night before the fallout?

I wonder how hard it will be to tell the good stuff from the poison. Depending on just how unregulated they go, labels might not even match contents.

That uninstalling python2 bit reminds me of stories of users deleting their system32 folder to free up disk space.

Not going to hold my breath that anything like this will happen in the current political climate, but yeah, that should be mandatory. Even ignoring the exploitive nature towards their customers, it creates a ton of unnecessary waste.

I disagree that that warning is reasonably clear. Even the comment that included it has the line of thought, where the user, not knowing what terms git uses thinks that they just did an action that is going to change each of their files. It makes sense that they’d want to discard those changes. That user then goes on with some snark about not wanting to learn any more about what they are playing with and that other programs would do the same, but “discard changes” seems like it would have a clear meaning to someone who doesn’t know git.

The warning says it isn’t undoable but also doesn’t clarify that the files themselves are the changes. Should probably have a special case for if someone hits discard changes on a brand new repository with no files ever checked in and hits discard on a large number of files instead of checking them in. Even a “(This deletes all of the local files!)” would make it clear enough to say what the warning is really about.

She might be wearing a tube top. Need a wider angle to be sure.

That art style is pretty off-putting tbh.