Why chiplets? Can anyone explain to me why I'd want chiplets as opposed to a processor embedded in a Field Programmable Gate Array? Seems like development would be infinitely cheaper and the possibilities far more dynamic? Chiplets seem slow and expensive to develop. Once built they'd be completely static and probably necessarily replaced by the subsequent version in 3-5 years.
Sample size 1, but I've got a kid. I've got an ipad. I put the two together in with supervision, and what I've got now is a 4 year old that reads the walls in the bathroom stall while she's pooping.
I don't know if this is "better" or what you had in mind as "gains", but it's certainly entertaining for me!
In my youth, I was familiar with the facility that came before NIF, built in the 70's the goal at the time was to use a smaller target to demonstrate that the foundational principles that would underpin the success of NIF would work. As far as I know, they never succeeded. NIF was built anyway because this type of device is well suited to allowing access to certain types or demonstrations of physics that are otherwise unaccessible and important in a specific field of research not directly related to the flourishing of our race.
The article is old news before it was written. The article mentions the previous 'success' (yield was higher than previous experiments), and that was over a year ago now. They haven't been able to reproduce the previous experiment even knowing as precisely as they can what they perceive to be the preconditions necessary for an effective reaction. It also seems that this article was written about a single experiment. They will not be able to intentionally repeat the experiment. The manner in which they're exploring the pareto front is like groping in the dark to find a light switch that has an unknown texture and conformation. It's a classic monte-carlo simulation but they have one iteration every several weeks or months, and they cannot even possibly identify all the controlling parameters, nor do they have the necessary throughput or bandwidth to succeed in their pursuit without windfall.
The low hanging fruit providing the basic harmonics of the solution were discovered well before I was even introduced to this technology (in the 70's and 80's. Coincidentally around the moment of the genesis of many of our modern treaties on weapons testing).
You are overly optimistic, a 40-60% increase in nearly nothing is still nearly nothing. The PR campaign around this event is I think more significant in its political convenience, and in white washing the purpose of the facility. There are significant discoveries that still need to be made to even make the reactions consistent, and they will not come conveniently or quickly. Once the reactions are better understood and the mechanisms can be manipulated with intent the distance between the science and a practical industry / commercial product will require even more hurdles that stretch the imagination to be overcome. For instance I cannot conceive of a practical mechanism for actually utilizing any fraction of the massive amount of energy released in a fraction of a second in a chaotic murder of wavelengths and particles. The most practical way we've yet discovered for converting neutrons to electricity is through boiling water. Grossly inefficient in other contexts, I'm not sure that has even marginal utility in this scope.
I for one am 100% sure I barely know what I'm talking about. My disclaimer is that I'm not a physics guy, and high energy density physics was only a hobby of mine at one brief point in my life. Through perspicacity and access to papers and people, this is my honest mental model of the whole thing. You're welcome to your perspective, but although you seem well informed you sound very inexperienced.
My father worked for what was basically a bootstrapped startup at the bleeding edge of computing in the late 80's. Eventually his company, through a series of exchanges was part of Nortel Networks.
He'll tell you a different story. When you mention the "espionage / sabotage" he doesn't laugh or shake his head, it actually just outright infuriates him. Such a naive narrative only angers him because it seems to absolve the people who managed the company of outright incompetence and corruption, which is how it should be remembered.
For example: one story I vividly recall because I could never fully fathom it involved a specific female executive who was traveling for business - first class overseas. She never made her intended engagement because she was immediately arrested upon disembarking the plane. She had got drunk and (although married) decided to perform overt sexual acts with the gentleman sitting adjacent to her. On the plane. In her seat.[1]
At some point the culture of the executive at Nortel, for whatever reason, became completely incompetent and outright immoral. Rather than Huawei underhandedly perpetrating the perfect crime, it was simply the people at the head of the organization that solicited the crime to pursue their own benefit above all else.
CO2 may momentarily be one of a convoluted set of factors that contribute to the dominant harmonic component of the system with the output "global temperatures", but it is not in and of itself stable in it's relation to the output of the system. Clearly due to the afore mentioned "convoluted set of factors" having their own internal period/fluctuations/harmonics of convolution.
CO2 will rise, but it will eventually necessary uncouple from it's relationship to temperature at which point some other factor we are wholy unaware of will probably do something as equally disturbing to our environmental "equilibrium".
If you transform the system in respect to time, you'll find that from some perspective almost nothing ever happened, and from another the whole thing was wildly unstable and unpredictable.
It already doesn't matter what CO2 levels are doing now. Up and to the right and how hard is probably completely irrelevant. What matters is the flux of the system, and everything points to the fact that weve already left the station. There's no unwinding this thing, and it's not going where anyone thinks it's going.
The truly conservative thing to be doing would be to prepare ourselves for the most violent future, but instead what we're trying to do is grip onto the past with our already dying hand. Weakening our heart at the very moment we need to bolster it.
Everything is going to be fine, but you and I will be dead. I assure you of that.
You're implicit assumption is that the system's response to ever increasing CO2 is indefinitely linear and proportional?
If you believe that I've got some beans you can buy.
This equilibrium you're chasing is much more transient than you'd like to think. Especially in the face of more and more accurate/precise observations.
I'd also like to add that how easy an egg is to peel has nothing to do with how you cook it. Truly fresh eggs will not peel wonderfully. If you have some week old Kroger eggs, more than likely those things are several weeks old which changes the chemical composition of the egg. The shell/skin becomes more alkaline which somehow causes them to release from the white more easily.
If you have fresh eggs, boil them with some baking soda in the water.
For hard boiled just put cold eggs in cold water and boil them. When it boils, shut off the heat. When you can stick you hand in the water and pull them out they're done.