The US military knows full well the importance of logistics. TFA is somehow arguing for distributed distribution networks that are harder to track and attack. Why not advocate for improved defenses along the supply lines? Or is it down to percentages where just one good hit has large effect?
>> I do not give a shit if you want to use a 3 year old browser at this point. Go look at a blank screen.
And I don't give a shit about your site/content/whatever. If you don't work with Firefox or my old Mac browser, your whatever isn't worth my time. For "content" sites this is insanely true, even for "news".
It's 195 x 190 x 60mm and takes a standard ITX board. You'll need to relocate the hole for the fan depending on your motherboard, but CAD files are available and you only need to change 2 parameters (X,Y of the hole center).
BTW mine was upgraded to 64GB RAM and a 5700G (zen 3 APU) but it died and I'm still trying to bring up a newer board - still socket AM4.
BTW to get the center coordinates of the hole, measure from the edges of the board to the top and bottom of the metal plate under the CPU socket and take their average distance. That plate is symmetric and centered under the hole.
>> I wanna see an inference chip where the weights are part of the rom of the chip.
I've been wondering about that for a while now. For a lot of tasks putting weights in ROM is probably OK. OTOH:
>> There would be 1 multiplier per weight...
I'm not sure that is a good idea. Maybe if its quantized down to 2 bits... Otherwise maybe a small ROM near each multiplier (or row of them or whatever) so the multipliers could handle N distinct matrix operations without having to move the data from far away.
Another fun thought is to have a row of MAC units on DRAM so a DRAM row would be a vector. Row size might be 64Kbit or 8K weights if they're 8bit. This also keeps the weights and calcs on the same chip. I'm not sure this would put enough multipliers on one chip though. Systolic arrays can have tens or hundreds of thousands each doing one op per clock cycle.
I was drooling over the MC68000. I had a pre-release reference manual from 1979 and it was the most awesome chip around. Atari and Commodore and Apple used it after their 6502 systems. Arcade games used it after their 6502 and 6809 days. The only reason x86 became popular was because IBM put it in the PC - not for any technical reasons.
>> Scroll wheel mice are slightly better because the middle button is physically different (and often slightly raised). I do have one stored away in case I need it.
Solvespace does great with a scroll-wheel mouse. Scroll = zoom.
"Gave away for free" does not mean they did so under a Free Software license. One could just put a copyright notice with NO license and they'd be in violation of the copyright.
Oh, I actually hate trying to use solvespace with anything other than a 3-button mouse. Unfortunate because the web version can actually run on my phone but is unusable in practice.
>> The Solvespace UI is a long, long way from being the sort of UI a contemporary kid has any kind of comfort with...
Respectfully, I disagree. Even adults have used the word "fun" to describe using solvespace. But I don't actually have feedback from kids, hence the question to OP.
I haven't heard of any UBI experiments, only giving BI to some people, which would not have much impact on things like average rents over an entire region.
I have similar hopes for Solvespace - that every middle school student can pick it up and design things. We have a couple issues that keep me from recommending it too strongly though - bugs in the boolean code are IMHO the biggest blocker for kids.
Any chance you could have the kids make comparisons between the two? Solvespace is completely constraint-based, so it may be a bit harder to learn but also more flexible.
I think John Carmack is confusing the usefulness of ones contribution to what went in to making it. Both of these men have done amazing things technically and deciding which one is "better" is a fools errand.
The shell theorem does not apply to galaxies.