You don't really get an FPGA for capability. CPUs are much more capable, and they're general-purpose so they can do absolutely anything with about the same efficiency and just a little more code.
You get an FPGA for timing. They're less capable, but (in many common design architectures), they output their results once per clock, every clock, on time, every time. If you can hit a fabric clock of say 100MHz, clocking all the weird logic you can stuff in there, it gives 100 million outputs per second, never skipping a single one for any reason (short of total failure). The penalty is that making a small change to your desired "program" can be very expensive, and many things won't be realistically possible at all. Or at least won't fit into a part that you can buy. But things like audio, video, and high-frequency trading love being able to guarantee timing.
(Of course there are other ways to write your FPGA HDL, but that's one of the more common ones. And you do see DDR-style clocking, and similar, every now and then.)
> with about the same efficiency and just a little more code.
It depends. For some things, CPUs don't even come close. An XCVU13P FPGA can handle 1.2Tbps of full-duplex Ethernet @ 1 billion pps. And that part costs less than a grand at moderate qty, and with significantly less power consumption than a CPU that'd be capable of operating a dataplane at these speeds.
The point I was trying to make is that the CPU is a general-purpose creature and doesn't really care what you want it to do. If you had a CPU that could handle 1.2Tbps of Ethernet packets at 1Gpps, it could do a whole lot of other things involving 1.2Tbps of data flow too, very easily, if someone wrote the software. And more. (But you're probably not getting 2.4Tbps out of it, no matter what you do.)
An FPGA can not. There's plenty of things that those XCVU13Ps just can't do, or would do worse than a $1 microcontroller. (Setting aside for a moment implementing a CPU inside the FPGA... which does actually happen in just about every large-enough FPGA design, which is its own discussion....)
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. An FPGA is inherently more general than a CPU because it implements any digital logic including a CPU. They're just more expensive and have clock speed limitations. Saying if you had a CPU that could do 1.2Tbps is just as silly as saying if you had an FPGA that easily operated at 5GHz.
Well holy shit. I didn't expect to wake up this morning and see the "outside" guy from my thesis committee (aka, the only one who wasn't a rubber stamp) winning the Nobel Prize.
Francis isn't the first Nobel Prize winner I've crossed paths with. But I think he's the only one I'd call a "decent human being". (When I use it, that phrase has a meaning roughly comparable to "nontrivial", so, saying it is nontrivial.) He was well enough liked by faculty and students during my time at UW-Madison.
It's important to note that he's not getting the prize for "conceiving of IceCube" like some people are saying. It's for "conceiving of IceCube and somehow actually making it happen". The latter is the achievement.
It doesn't even have to be transparent! (I think.) Big red "FIRE" letters and either a visible handle to open or very obvious instructions would probably be acceptable.
I wonder how stable this thing is, or if it can even be all that reliably purified out (if anyone wanted to). I've heard from reliable-ish sources that when tritium is introduced to the body it diffuses throughout quite rapidly, so I'm guessing it might be impossible to get rid of this with any reasonable level of effort.
This works for deuterium to hydrogen, but only barely (0.06%!). And that's a 2:1 mass ratio. Uranium separation is 238:235, roughly, or 1.013:1. Not so easy!
0.06% is the deuterium impurity in the product, not HPLC yield. Getting 6mg from 100g means their separation was almost perfect. But I agree it's probably harder with uranium.
The flip side to this is that when you do come across a forged PDF (and I have!), they can be really, really effective. Nobody expects them. There are usually tells in the metadata, but... there don't have to be.
Conglomerates in general, and especially Japanese ones, are heterogeneous enough that those are basically two different companies. The British "Fujitsu" was an acquisition that I'm certain they now deeply, deeply regret.
The other powerful thing about being able to do everyone else's job is that you, personally, gain a lot of leverage, and in a lot of different ways. Someone else needs a favor? You probably know how to deliver. Something's on fire? You probably know what to do next, or at least who to call, no matter what's on fire today. Someone isn't budging on something? You might not have any bigger of a lever than anyone else, but you probably know exactly where to position yours, and exactly what it'll do when you apply a bit of force.
It's useful.
And then there's times like getting to charge your client $300/hour to drop stuff off at FedEx. Because you can do that and you're here and you'll get it done right -- no one needs to explain the idiosyncracies of this particular deadline or package contents; you've got it.
Even if that's not normally a senior consultant's job.
LOL! My bosses used to tell me that I need to learn to be more `rude` and not just do what others says because I can. I have learnt a lot and one of the biggest is to say NO, in big Uppercase—I can do anything for work but I won’t do that, NO, I won’t do that.
Sometime, I still do and I like the fun and thrill of locking in a hotel room after a meeting and coming out in lot less days these days (pppppsssstt, because of AI) and get into the next meeting showing off what can be done that was discussed 48 hours ago.
You don't do these things because they benefit your boss. (They might happen to, but that's not the point.)
You do them because they benefit you.
Not going to benefit you? There's lots of ways to say no to a back-channel request. Not a back-channel request? Then I guess it's not someone else's job!
Easier said than done. Saying no is not so easy. There's a bit of a weird dynamic that if you could do something that others need help with, saying no can be considered rude, but saying (even if lying) that you don't know how to do it is generally accepted. Usually a boss (or even a colleague) backing in saying no helps a lot.
Also the helping can cause escalation of "demand". First you help with something quick and easy for you, but soon you find "owning" more and more of the task.
It's not dissimilar from the entitled people in open source project bug trackers.
We may or may not have hit the physical point of no return. It doesn't really matter, because we obviously hit the point of political no return a long time ago.
In too much of the world, nobody with any kind of power cares. (My own country included.) It's the prisoner's dilemma yet again: why should any of us who might care cooperate, when everyone else is cheating?
We hit that point a long, long time ago.
The situation isn't hopeless, I think, but this talk of "point of no return" doesn't work because it doesn't acknowledge the reality that, as ever, it's political and some people actively do not want to address it.
And articles like this are just making it worse. What’s the takeaway? “It’s too late to fix it, so there’s no point in trying.” The outcome can always be made better, or worse. We need to focus on that if we want to aim for “better.”
The critic’s lament: describe the situation in mild terms, the public concludes it’s not a big deal and takes no action; describe it in stark terms, the public concludes there’s nothing to be done and takes no action
They're all horrid to step on, so that's not really worth discussing.
The US plug (NEMA 1-15P is the 2-prong version, or 5-15P for the most common 3-prong grounded) is actually pretty decent. They stay in sockets pretty well if the sockets aren't bottom-of-the-barrel garbage products which, sadly, many things in the US are in general.
What many people miss when comparing US and EU plugs are that they're actually doing fairly different jobs. The 120V mains in the US is significantly less trouble than the 240V in Europe, so you can get away with a lot less mechanically on the plug. The US NEMA 6-15P plug design (the 240V version of the standard plug) is, accordingly, kind of shit. But at least it's rare enough that receptacles tend to be of decent quality, which mitigates a lot. The locking versions (L5-15R etc) are actually quite good, and should almost always be used when possible and appropriate. They're good to 480V and even a bit beyond -- not just working but actually good -- and you can't say that about most EU plug designs. You guys have those horribly bulky pin-and-sleeve disasters and we get nice NEMA locking plugs for our three-phase.
One of the other things that European plugs have to deal with, and US plugs don't, is that European electricians have no idea how to separate hot and neutral wires and basically wire them up randomly. This has major consequences in a lot of product design and is really really annoying when you're trying to build something safe. (Namely: in the US you're often (but not always) not allowed to fuse neutral wires. That makes sense, for safety reasons. You have to fuse hot... but in Europe you don't know which one is hot, so you have to fuse them both. Which means you just fused neutral. Design conflict!) That shows up in the plugs, too; with no idea where hot is, you have to be more careful and can't use neutral to help you out.
British plugs are worse to step on, not because the pins are any worse to have jammed into your foot but because the design of the plugs means that if you leave one unplugged on the floor there's an excellent chance that it ends up in caltrop configuration with the pins pointing upward, whereas a US-style plug is (I think) more likely to end up with the pins pointing sideways where they're less likely to hurt your foot when you step on the plug.
But in all other respects the British mains plug design is really rather good. It does a good job of making partially-plugged-in plugs still safe, it's nice and robust, it readily stays firmly plugged in, etc.; US plugs are much worse in these respects and I think so are typical continental European ones.
BS 1363 isn't an EU plug though. Doesn't have issues with separation of hot and neutral wires (and does have a fuse for the hot wire built in) and nor is it specified with the idea that electrocution risk is no biggie or that not falling out of walls (a big issue with some Euro plug and socket combinations too) is up to the manufacturer. And having one type of plug for all regular home appliances in the UK and a different one for three phase feels like a more sensible split than the range of 2 and 3 pin options of varying quality and compatibility that CEE7 and NEMA present.
Fair point on BS 1363 not being EU, and about UK electricians not being incompetent (I actually didn't know they were careful unlike the continent -- that's just one of those things that once you have to deal with the insanity that is continental Europe, it doesn't really much matter what else is out there).
But my point about electrocution risk is that 240V is not twice as dangerous as 120V. It's actually much, much worse. And 480V is worse still. We used to say that screwing up 120V will hurt you, 240V will kill you, and 480V will kill you, start your corpse on fire, and blind everyone around you. So the design requirements for all 240V class plugs are much more important.
> not falling out of walls ... is up to the manufacturer
This one is a real problem in the US because there is a standard, it is a good standard, parts are made and tested to the standard, and standards-compliant parts work very well. But few people require the damn standard. If you want good receptacles in the US, get stuff that's marked "Federal Specification W-C-596 rated" (aka "Fed Spec"; "Spec Grade" is self-certified to... something... which is... not the same thing... but in practice the manufacturers seem not to abuse that term too much; often lower-volume part numbers seem only to be available as "Spec Grade" presumably due to testing cost). It will perform well.
You get an FPGA for timing. They're less capable, but (in many common design architectures), they output their results once per clock, every clock, on time, every time. If you can hit a fabric clock of say 100MHz, clocking all the weird logic you can stuff in there, it gives 100 million outputs per second, never skipping a single one for any reason (short of total failure). The penalty is that making a small change to your desired "program" can be very expensive, and many things won't be realistically possible at all. Or at least won't fit into a part that you can buy. But things like audio, video, and high-frequency trading love being able to guarantee timing.
(Of course there are other ways to write your FPGA HDL, but that's one of the more common ones. And you do see DDR-style clocking, and similar, every now and then.)
reply