Comments by "Siana Gearz" (@SianaGearz) on "Asianometry" channel.

  1. 52
  2. 42
  3. 35
  4. 33
  5. 31
  6. 26
  7. 24
  8. 23
  9. 23
  10. 22
  11. 20
  12. 20
  13. 20
  14. 18
  15. 18
  16. 16
  17. 16
  18. 15
  19. 13
  20. 12
  21. 12
  22. 11
  23. 11
  24. 10
  25. 9
  26. 9
  27. 9
  28. 9
  29. 8
  30. As it happens, i have some relevant experience. 10 years ago, i was a developer on a commercial 3D engine - at the time, it was slowly failing as a game engine, we were shipping some WiiWare and XBLA shovelware, but for all intents and purposes, Unity was eating our lunch. Before Unity came about, we had the most popular indie and small-scale game engine in the region, with some AAA-ish successes. With just a couple exceptions. One, is that we have carved out a niche in virtual studio, that is all these news and weather and all kinds of TV broadcasts which were filmed against a bluescreen, so they had camera tracking, realtime compositing, and the studio would be assembled and rendered in a game engine. I didn't think this trend ever looked good or was good and as it happens, now it's dead, the virtual studios have been gone for 5 years. The second was the CG movie previsualisation. The problem is, when you're filming a movie against blue/greenscreen, where do you put the camera, what will actually be in the shot once the post production team is done with it? Previs doesn't have to look entirely photorealistic, but it has to be all the right things in the right place and it has to respond to lighting, and it solves that problem. On-set previs with camera tracking will allow the DP and director to see on a screen an adequate approximation of what they're aiming towards, on set. So that was our second hope to survive, and we were well equipped, given existing camera tracking partnership and TV foothold and the technical traits that we offered. Unfortunately, a lot of other companies also recognised the need, it was actually a massive push at the time, Crytek was actually the only big game engine players represented in this area directly, and they had a lot going for them, like A LOT, others had some sort of ad hoc tech specialised for the purpose, bound more closely to industry animation software, or were built also on top of existing game engines. What's happening now is that Unreal is eating everyone's lunch, it's digging hard under Unity on all fronts. Indie devs are also gradually less interested in Unity, and well you have mentioned The Mandalorian yourself. What Unity needs is a foothold and some industry expertise to enter this industry. If they can get at least one major studio not going Unreal, they have at least some hope in this industry. There appear to have been a number of what i might describe as panic acquisitions by Unity just to make sure Epic/Unreal doesn't get there first. Also it is a little funny to hear a company where core engineering on their namesake product is from Denmark and is assembled from European devs first and foremost to be described as "American" but that's the world we live in, i guess.
    7
  31. 7
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 6
  36.  @megalonoobiacinc4863  Pollution? No. I would say pollution is something that you release into the environment uncontained, and i don't anticipate substantial release like that in the future, and to a small extent, radioactive material is just naturally present in the environment, so as long as you stay well under this order of magnitude, it's fine - and also to be considered that burning coal releases radioactive pollution as well. Contained waste products that need long term management is what you might be thinking of. Ultimately the consensus has emerged that you can just dig a deep enough hole in some vaguely stable rock and bury the previously stabilised stuff in there, and then forget about it and it's absolutely fine long term without reservations, at least at foreseeable future scale of waste production (you possibly can't just scale it up endlessly); but then there's NIMBYs. Other solutions include further use of what is currently waste but there are political roadblocks as well. Ultimately current form of nuclear power is a temporary measure, to hold us over for the maybe next sub 50 years until we figure something out. As far as temporary measures go, i'd say it's pretty decent as long as it isn't the only hydrocarbon independence measure taken but part of a broader strategy. It's also a temporary measure because we're going to run out of uranium, so our potentially limited ability to safely entomb waste is well balanced by the raw resource being limited in the first place. So waste isn't really a problem.
    6
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. 5
  40. Strong disagreement on all points. German engineering businesses have their hands in a LOT of pies, thousands of them. It has semiconductor business and others. Infineon is one of the larger semiconductor companies and is German. Germany also has one of world leadership positions in chemistry (BASF etc), medical technology, robotics and factory and engineering equipment, and companies like Bosch are involved in more engineering and manufacturing ventures than you can count, always behind the scenes, critical supplier. SSDs will almost fully supplant HDDs when the price is right for almost all uses, and the price of SSDs has basically no lower bound in sight. HDD capacity per square inch has been barely growing in the last 10 years, and it is an extremely complex assembly which can no longer be reduced in cost. SSDs are suitable for an approximately 5-7-year online storage use, just like HDDs. So when the device is normally connected to power, it will retain the data, and can survive power removal for a moderate length of time. What SSDs are not suitable for is offline storage. So if you disconnect an SSD from power, after a year or two of being unpowered, it will rapidly start losing data, while an HDD loses data when online, but remains perfectly stable offline. An SSD while connected to power periodically "refreshes" so reads and rewrites data stored on it, to nudge the gate voltages into alignment again and reduce data loss, while when it's not powered, the drift occurs uncontrolled. The refresh itself consumes a small percentage of SSD's overall limited write endurance. In this context, "online" means whether the device is powered and running and the data is accessible within fractions of a second after being requested. Currently, the vast overwhelming majority of data storage is HDD-based, online, redundant. To the extent that SSDs exhibit a data loss even online, it's only a matter of redundancy and cost. So when SSDs reach half the price/GB of HDDs, you can simply use twice as many SSDs to store data more redundantly and you will also use less power than with HDDs, and the break even point will come much earlier than that. Considering SSD power efficiency and power cost, it's likely when price/GB reaches near parity, HDDs are dead for all uses except offline backup. In offline storage, HDD will face more competition from tape storage. Currently, HDD only wins in offline storage because low price of HDD is facilitated by the large mass market that needs HDDs and uses them for online storage and general use, which will break away. When HDD price rises, there will be a re-evaluation that favours tape again. There is magnetic tape (LTO) and potentially optical laser tape. I think Seagate is gearing up for LTO expansion. The economic cross over point and thus extremely drastic demand decline of HDD will occur within 5 years.
    5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. I don't know shit about Mexico but i'll tell you what about bits and bobs of Soviet Union. Like that whole Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the rest of them? Well maybe not right now, but if you look back 10, 15, 20, 25 years, nothing happened there either. So first off why you'd wanna. Well there's the people, who are highly educated, lots of engineers, scientists, but also skilled former factory workers, from when these countries fully supplied themselves but industrial automation and efficiency was low. With a little money they will create, automate, optimise, and they're naturally resourceful, they're used to things not being quite by the book, things being impossible to acquire, but they invent and make do. There's also space and natural resources so the cost factors are very much on your side. But you can't, it would be the worst idea ever. Reason number one is organised crime. "Racket" they call it. Shakedowns. Everything you build, any machinery you acquire, it's not safe, you are probably going to lose it. And of course the organised crime has all the ties to the police and government, you as a budding industrialist do not. They shield each other. The bureaucrats have so gotten used to being fed, they have created a system where they can do anything and you can do nothing, they will create endless impediments, and you will be out of an unpredictable amount of money trying to bribe them, and bribes aren't optional, they are a hard necessity of doing business. You won't even know how and where and why everything is crumbling around you. Even if you were able to navigate the whole thing, like you make your connections to organised crime and you actually get protection and help navigating the bribes, you are likely still to get caught in the crossfire between different crime syndicates. And the hidden tax is overall incalculable, and expands to encompass anything you might earn. So yeah i don't know shit about Mexico, but if they've got some of those issues on their hands, you can't build there.
    5
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. Continued... The second half of the paper estimates the weight then, by fitting different solid shapes of up to 1mm in size (wat) to the number of particles, and... well it's really a load of handwaving at that point. The study authors themselves give their confidence range of between approximately 0.1g/week and 5.6g/week, with their best-effort estimate being 0.7g/week. And given their methods, i think they are undercounting their confidence interval, i think it's much worse than that, with several orders of magnitude of actual confidence. Really with existing data, no good statement could be made on how much plastic in terms of weight one ingests. That WWF chose to run with a 5g figure should tell you something. They presumably requested this estimate and then they took something near to the upper bound and ran with it, it's purely a scare tactic to drum up more funding. Which i'm a little ambivalent on, given yeah more funding is needed; but i wouldn't entrust WWF with it. It erodes the public trust into science and eco activism both, since it's fundamentally a dishonest tactic; someone at WWF will pat themselves on the back for a successful campaign, for winning a battle, while edging closer to lose the war. I also think lack of good weight data is not entirely a coincidence, due to limited relevance of bulk weight of small particulate, as environmental erosion and chemical interaction are surface based. For weight, what you want to know is how much (macro)plastic you put into the ocean, and that's hardly a secret. Microscopic surface estimates are difficult, but particle count might just be a good enough proxy. Just not for weight. Like you request useless data, you get useless conclusions.
    3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132.  @UpLateGeek  I am PAINFULLY aware of 2 year lead times, you don't have to tell me. I don't think anything substantial was shut down during pandemic, or i haven't heard of that. I know car manufacturers have dropped some orders, and then scrambled to get them back, but it wouldn't cause fabs and suppliers to get closed. They couldn't get new orders in because the capacities were already booked by some other semiconductors. Fundamentally, it's unnecessary that anything got shut down to get us where we got. Ingredient 1, is that electronics consumption keeps growing year to year by maybe a couple percent. 2, everything needs legacy components, jellybeans, classics, which are manufactured using old tech and which are not economical or impossible to move to new tech. 3, so as total electronics demand and demand for modern electronics is increasing, it drags alongside with it a demand in legacy components upwards. 4, in 2020, worldwide electronics sales shot up by 14%, which is WILD, pretty much never happened before; and the demand is remaining high even now. Given the huge jump in demand, some end device manufacturers cancelling their chip orders doesn't matter and wouldn't cause production stops, as the total demand increase is more than high enough to absorb any capacities that were in use previously. I have heard a conjecture somewhere that the problem with legacy component production capacity was a long time coming simply because demand keeps growing, but the legacy capacity is all we've had for a decade; but it wasn't expected to actually hit until 5+ years later, and more gradually, and was pushed to now and urgent by a sudden jump in demand. Do keep in mind that we have some overcorrection on our hands, that electronics manufacturers which thought that they didn't need to keep extra stock of jellybeans and were buying them on a weekly basis as needed (Just in Time manufacturing), now suddenly do, and many have decided to keep a year of advance stock that they're currently filling up; so the situation will take a long while to relax a little.
    1
  133. 1
  134.  @punditgi  yeah it's down to parts and when you design something in Europe, you can't just be designing in European parts you know, you're going to have a mixture of American, French-Italian, Japanese, Taiwanese and Chinese semiconductors, and in turn they use standards borrowed from different company standards from somewhere else in the world entirely with a different design culture, the footprints are pretty universal across the world and they are universally a mess across the world. Just some company did something and then the rest did something footprint-compatible and it became a standard eventually. Soviet Union tried to put things on a millimetre grid but that was even more infuriating, since you might have functionally compatible and similar looking chips with both 2.54mm spacing (international) and 2.5mm spacing (domestic) and domestic chips were occasionally produced in export leadframe so you never know what you get and the subtle and prone to bad contact misalignment on a 40 pin socket oh my God, and I can't even bear the thought of a 64-pin chip going through that sort of torture... Oh yeah that kinda still a thing in the rest of the world, with some connectors having same diameter pins but pitch of 2.5 or 2.54mm, so best not confuse the footprints or think of a last minute substitution... But at least that's not chip sockets. Newer footprints tend to be based on metric but we couldn't get rid of occasional Mil footprints in 35 years... So yeah that's how it stays. You can tell I built my first computer in Soviet Union - by soldering it together chip by chip. And I had a curse of finding only an imported Z80. But only domestic DRAM. It was the worst combination.
    1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. But FPGA is also an SRAM device, which makes it somewhat slow, space and power inefficient and cost inefficient compared to dedicated silicon at sufficient volume. Back decades ago, you'd have antifuse FPGAs which were essentially programmable ROM based configurable logic devices, but those seem to have died out, having been in a bit of a no-mans-land between in-system programmable devices and dedicated silicon. Before that, there were ULAs, which were mask ROM configurable logic devices. And then microcontrollers and configurable peripherals such as DMAC and if you look at something like RP2040's PIO peripheral probably eat quite substantially into CPLD/FPGA territory for a lot of tasks these would have been used for prior, as they're much easier to program. You're also correct in recognising a configurability increase in insanely complex circuits, and that it's absolutely vital, like PC CPUs contain fixed ALUs but the actual software facing instruction set is implemented as "microcode", a rough and usually barely functional version of which is on the silicon, but it gets updated from the PC firmware on every boot. Spinning up such a device costs a fortune and they are prone to bugs being discovered in the field which need to be fixed. Also so many hardware designs have leaned into SoC territory as time went, like "oof, this is hard - let's stick a processor core in there", and thus everything even devices which you think of as fixed functionality like SD-Cards and just about every USB peripheral have become firmware driven. When you buy a USB-to-serial dedicated function chip today, you find inside a 8051-compatible core and a ROM. As universal as FPGA are, they have also always been a niche device. The promise of FPGA everywhere somehow is always nearer and always further away and this has been this way for like 20 years.
    1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1