Permanently block this number? [yes] [no]

Companies with poor quality mobile websites also usually have poor quality apps.

The website can be objectively bad, but still better than the app experience.

>Why doesn’t someone fork systemd

Why don't you? It's open source. No one is stopping you. Your ideas on how init systems should work are obviously superior, so you'll easily win over a majority of developers, right?

I don’t care about majority developers. Just that Poettering’s will not be forced upon me. I just may fork or look at helping establish a better suite of tools in the future.

Also I never said my ideas were superior. Maybe go for a walk instead of getting upset someone thinks Systemd needs to die.

I read the page and went through the "verify the cycles for yourself" sequence and I still have no earthly idea when defining the cycles, what is the rule that says "if you're currently on hexagram X, you can calculate the next hexagram Y by doing..."

Each hexagram has two positions: one in the binary natural order (0-63), and one in the King Wen sequence. The rule is: a hexagram moves from its natural order position to its King Wen position. For example, Qian is at position 63 in the natural order and position 0 in the King Wen sequence, so σ(63)=0. Then look at position 0 (Kun), which is at position 1 in the King Wen sequence, so σ(0)=1. Follow this chain until you return to the start. There is no formula — σ is defined by the mapping table between the two orderings.

Unless you say it as "a fak"

"Happiness comes in small doses folks. It's a cigarette butt, or a chocolate chip cookie or a five second orgasm. You come, you smoke the butt you eat the cookie you go to sleep wake up and go back to f---ing work the next morning, THAT'S IT! End of f---ing list!"

-Dennis Leary

+1 - https://www.google.com/search?q=every+brilliant+thing

I am a native English speaker, and it's not just you.

This is the correct analysis.

Not to go all Ian Malcolm, but half this comment section is spending so much time wondering if we could build a space data center, without stopping to ask if it made any goddamn sense whatsoever to do so.

Heat travels when there is a thermal gradient. What thermally superconducting material are you going to make your cube out of that the surface temperature is exactly the same as the core temperature? If you don't have one, then to keep the h100 at 70c, the radiators have to be colder. How much more radiator area do you need then?

Have you considered the effects of insolation? Sunlight heats things too.

How efficient is your power supply and how much waste heat is generated delivering 1kW you your h100?

How do you move data between the ground and your satellite? How much power does that take?

If it's in LEO, how many thermal cycles can your h100 survive? If it's not in LEO, go back to the previous question and add an order of magnitude.

I could go on, but honestly those details - while individually solvable - don't matter because there is no world where you would not be better off taking the exact same h100 and installing it somewhere on the ground instead

h100 can operate at 80-90C continuously, so 70C seems conservative

I'm not advocating for space GPUs as a logical next step. so many unsolved problems remain

point is that launch costs per kg are a more realistic blocker than cooling

Some of us are old enough to remember the last time Intel was definitely, 100%, for-sure committed to offering foundry services, and then changed their mind and canceled the whole thing (it was in 2018) and want to see (a) someone else have success with 18A first and (b) intel show an actual long-term commitment to using their foundry for outside customers before we risk our companies' future on them.

There are risks with TSMC, but "TSMC just decides it's not interested in making chips for other people, and cancels the whole business" isn't one of them. The same cannot be said for Intel.

If Intel decides they're not going to continue foundry services after 14A - you can just shift back to TSMC like everyone did between Samsung and TSMC?

"Just shift back" is really underestimating how much effort it takes to port a design to a different foundry. Sure, you can target a new stdcell library and recompile your RTL (and re-floorplan, and re-do a bunch of other stuff) but you also have to swap out all your memories and interfaces, not all of which may have exact equivalents... it can easily take 1+ years of work for a competent team, and if you have to shift back all that time and effort was wasted.

Seems most major players are not only fabless but also fab-agnostic - as I noted they switch from one supplier to another even for the same product line. I'm sure it is work but it doesn't seem to be an existential crisis for a huge provider to send some volume to a new fab - certainly if it's derisking supply capacity, tariffs or other geopolitical risks.

That work is an opportunity cost that you could have used in taping out new designs.

And just hope they have any capacity to deliver? That's what I'd worry about, especially right now.