Early utilities tend to not be built on standards. See how early electric utilities within a country or even a city couldn't agree on voltage, frequency, phase, or even AC vs DC.
Microsoft never shipped Alpha support for win2k in the release builds, but only the betas and release candidates, so I doubt anyone ran it in "production".
You're calling it CoWoS, but also said "this shift eliminates the need for silicon interposers", but also said "CoWoS uses a passive silicon interposer"
Something's got to give here. I think it's your original article that's wrong, and it's poorly trying to describe InFO-M.
> So make the union for-profit instead? In other words the distinction isn't corporations vs unions, it's for-profit vs non-profit. This seems.. okay? What's the alternative, that organizations can get tax breaks and do whatever politicking they want?
The alternative is neither get to do politicking rather than only those who aren't formally working for some public good.
> Walking off the job when you have an agreement not to walk off the job is "protected speech"?
Yeah, it's called a protest.
They're allowed to walk off for their own issues. It's solidarity strikes that are banned. Ie. the nature of the speech is what makes it illegal.
> Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says
No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet.
> Are you sure that the reason why solidarity strikes are banned because union members are holding up a bunch of signs, and not say... walking off the job?
How is that not one of the most fundamental forms of protected speech?
Weaving was very much women's work. There are some exceptions that prove the rule, but society's labor expectations were extremely delineated along gender boundaries for adults in the middle ages. There's so many linguistic examples of this persisting to today. Another example being "spinster", ie. that an unmarried adult woman was expected to spend her time spinning thread.
And we don't have nearly the same amount of detail in women's work. That's why even today it's referred to as invisible labor.
It's complex, but those are not donations to a candidate, even more so than the normal PAC and Super PAC song and dance. You have to give up your non profit status to donate more directly to a candidates campaign.
> Seems like a stretch to lump industrial action with political donations.
Seems like a stretch to say that political donations are speech and should be protected, but literal picketing isn't.
They already have. Unions generally can't donate to political campaigns, and can't do things like strike in solidarity with other unions which would be pretty clearly be speech if we're counting corporate donations to political campaigns as speech.
The point is that the data we have is on men's work. No one said that women were bored SAHM hobbies. Just that pointing out extra tasks that need to be done in addition to the record we have of men working 150 days a year doesn't make much sense when that additional work wasn't done by men.
> It's still work. It doesn't magically have zero value because it was done by women. The methodology cited by the book counts only counts hours worked if it's farming or wage employment, but doesn't count any household labor, which means anything that's shifted from being made at home to being bought would could as extra hours worked, even if it saves time overall.
Nobody said it had zero value. The point is that labor roles were extremely gender striated, and the record is mostly kept only for men's labor. So saying that they worked more because of the example task you gave doesn't make sense when societally that work was put onto others.
The students and researchers weren't the customers, but instead the large institutions they belong to. In a sense, they should be the same from this context, but the amount of consolidation that has occurred in the academic publishing space means that large institutions don't really have the same plausible deniability that their individual members do.
Except that kind of work would have been split up by gender. The etymology of "woman" is literally "weaving person", and those kinds of tasks were up to the mostly adult women who also wouldn't have been working in the fields, so it ends up being a wash when painting with a wide brush.
Ok, part of my confusion was that it was being presented in contrast to InFO-oS and InFO-PoP, but it appears to mostly be a modified version of InFO-PoP called InFO-M? Because Apple has been using InFO-PoP for almost a decade at this point, starting with the A10.
Do we have any explanations of what WLCM means that are more industry focused? I couldn't find anything that didn't look like blogspam. And that explanation of the DRAM being on the same wafer doesn't really make sense. For one, at that point there's no "multi chip" part if you're integrating more onto the same die rather than less.
And their explanation isn't really passing the smell test for me for other reasons, for instance the fact that DRAM processes are pretty radically different than bulk logic processes, which wouldn't really let you put it all on the same wafer, much less the same die. Even back in the day when you had eDRAM blocks (like the Xbox 360's eDRAM die), that was really a DRAM process with a bit of logic cells that wouldn't be competitive if they weren't sitting right next to the DRAM blocks.
I could be wrong here though, my examples are more than a bit long in the tooth.