• 0 Posts
  • 301 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle




  • No, it would not be possible, the etching process would destroy extant features on any silicon. There are multiple steps to it and some will destroy the work of the steps that come after, so putting a finished chip through would remove the existing features.

    Generally fabrication is done on a circular 300mm wafer, printing a grid of identical chips on it that are then cut out. It would be highly inefficient to do each chip one at a time, doing one small chip or 50 chips at once on one wafer takes the same amount of time and effort.

    And the bare silicon left after the first few steps isn’t really worth much. You can go buy a blank high end 300mm wafer for like 81 bucks online. The material value of the silicon is nothing compared to the value of the machine time.




  • X11 and Wayland are the bits that handle windows, mouse inputs and stuff around graphical user interfaces. They’re what makes GUIs work.

    X has been around since the 80s and is throughly decrepit and just does not support a lot of modern functionality. If you’ve had some issue with your windows and display being janky or monitors not working properly, it’s probably due to X11. It works for the most part, but there are just a lot of situations where it creates issues.

    Wayland fixes a lot off issues because it is built to handle modern situations better. If you want to see an easy example, if you’re on mint with X11, go to settings and set your UI scaling to some uneven value like 136%, you’ll probably see some weird buggy stuff happen. That’s the kind of thing Wayland fixes.



  • A lot of that cloud compute revenue growth comes from open AI and anthropic paying Microsoft to use their GPU compute to run their models, which is to say, that if you think “anthropic bankrupting people overnight with token costs” is unsustainable, then a lot of Microsoft’s cloud compute growth isn’t sustainable ether. Especially given that a significant amount of the associated “revenue” growth is just them counting redeemed credits as revenue. Credits that they traded to OpenAI in exchange for access to the IP and models that they built copilot on. So if openAI can’t run a sustainable business renting out Microsoft’s GPU compute to run openAI’s models, what makes Bill think Microsoft will be able to do so by running those same models them selves with that same GPU compute?

    If we ignore that shell game of “revenue growth” then the rest of their increase in profits comes from incredibly short term and short sighted strategies, such as huge layoffs across multiple divisions and jacking up prices for 365 subscriptions. In fact they’re probably over valued right now given that their current valuation is based on the assumption that they will continue to grow at the rates they have in the past. Price(of their shares) to earnings(earnings per share) across the whole market are at record highs. A price to earnings of 21 to 1 would be exceptionally high 30 years ago. The fact that the average P/E of the companies on the S&P500 is 31 to 1 doesn’t mean Microsoft is undervalued, it means that most companies are massively over valued. Like, you need to be expecting insane growth over the next 10 years to justify P/E’s like that.





  • megopie@beehaw.orgtoLinux@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Going public just means that the shares will be traded on a public market (stock market) rather than being held privately. So anyone who wants to buy shares can. There are some legal requirements to be publicly traded, largely regarding public disclosure of finances and assets.

    The major difference would be that suddenly anyone who wants to have a say in how they are run can buy shares, and if they buy enough shares, they can pressure leadership in to making decisions they would not have otherwise made. also, people buying the shares probably will want to see their shares increase in value, and thus leadership will be pressured to please the stock market hive mind. Potentially it opens them up to a hostile takeover where some outside group buys up enough shares to replaces the leadership with people they want in charge.




  • Roughly speaking a legal document stating what the author lets people do with their open source code. There are multiple types of license.

    The core element is basically saying “I have released this code as opened source and anyone can use, no one else is allowed to claim it’s theirs and own it.”

    Depending on the type of license there are often additional caveats. Like saying anyone who releases updated or altered versions have to release them under the same license or that people using it can not sell it.


  • at a certain point all you can do is laugh. Like, there is so much being left on the table, so many legitimately useful applications, but they only seem to care about chat bots and robots, because their conception of useful and powerful isn’t a better product, but how they can substitute capital expenditure for labor.

    Managing people is hard, developing new products is hard, implementing new technology is hard. Selling vapor wear to other business? Easy. Taking in a bunch of investment on outlandish promises and then selling the company before you have to deliver? Easy. Making usage numbers go up by forcing something infront of users? Easy.