Posts by vtcodger 2266 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Sep 2017
"Anyone making 555s and 741s in the US?"
At a guess, Global Foundaries. But even if they make them, their product would likely be Mil-Spec. Wider temperature range than commercial or industrial grade, but also more costly. And expanding a fab even for ancient chip designs surely isn't either cheap or quick.
Yet Another Utopian Solution (YAUS). Sounds goob. But, in reality, the miscreants will predictably mostly find a number of ways to escape justice.
They may choose to operate from a country that doesn't much care if US/EU/UK operations are attacked -- North Korea, Iran, Russia.
and/or
They may choose to operate from countries where the local strongmen/authorities will overlook their activities for a cut of the revenue stream.
and/or
They may leave (a) trail(s) of digital "breadcrumbs" leading to some innocent party.
and/or
They may find ways to corrupt the enforcement agency/agencies.
and/or
They'll come up with some other protective scheme(s). It's not like they're stupid. If they were stupid, they probably wouldn't be a threat.
Like way too many simplistic "solutions" to complex problems this looks like the foundation of a Now you have two (or more) problems. The original problem and the unexpected consequences of the "solution".
It's going to vary from business to business. If your company does retail, it needs employees to show up. If it makes widgets, it likely requires some live humans in the widget foundry to handle deliveries and make sure the machinery is working properly. But a lot of jobs really can be done remotely and it seems kind of dumb not to do them remotely. Why add to your costs and aggravate the staff by requiring them to show up at an office? Of course it requires skills to do that properly. If you lack those skills maybe you ought to consider acquiring them or maybe it's time to retire.
This brownish smelly stuff is getting really deep. I suppose that if one dug through it systematically, one would eventually find the source -- presumably cows and/or marketing types. Difficult to tell the difference at times. And I'm not sure it matters. At least not to me.
Look folks. AI looks to be one of those things like GUIs around 1970, digital communications in the 1980s, or autonomous vehicles in 2010 that's relatively easy to demo and quite difficult to implement in a useful context.
I'm actually rather impressed with it. I'm surprised it works as well as it does. I wouldn't be shocked to find that decades from now when its costs are lower and its results more reliable, it turns out to be truly transformative. But for now it looks not to be fit for much of anything. Truly, it looks, for most situations, to be something between a near infinite money sink and an accident waiting to happen.
Equally if not more important, Unix configuration files almost all ignore lines lines starting with #. This means that they can (and usually do) contain abundant explanatory comments. The registry on the other hand was, when last I looked at it in 2003 or so, a humongous undocumented data base. Any information as to what key did what and what values were expected had to be gleaned from the often cryptic or incomprehensible names and/or whatever information could be found on the Internet and/or trial and error. I assume that's still the case. I have trouble understanding why people continue to defend this rather bizarre approach to system control.
There may well be better ways to manage system configuration than .ini/.init/.cfg files. But I don't think the Windows registry is one of them.
Not wild about the collection of haze,smoke and mirrors known as The Cloud? You might find this interesting -- The Big Cloud Exit FAQ
Unlike most of the bizarre collection of crackpots, weirdos and sociopaths Trump has assembled to foster his Great Leap Backwards, Wright actually has some credentials other than bombast and a generally rotten attitude. He has bachelors and masters degrees in Engineering and runs an energy company. It therefore seems conceivable that he could know what he's talking about.
Personally, I think Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) will prove to cost more overall and be more aggravating to permit, build, operate and decommission than a conventional reactor with the same total energy output. But it's clear that some SMRs are going to be built. And if that's the case, the US needs to get moving on them if it doesn't want to be buying the technology from China which is claiming they will bring their first ACP100 unit online in 2026.
Will an AI feedback loop oscillate? Seems likely doesn't it? Are there uses for an AI oscillator? Probably, although I can't really think of any offhand. Anyway, it sounds like a whole new tech opportunity. And it's an open niche. Best get started finding your venture capital. And get working on a patent application. Surely, that can be AI generated. It probably doesn't matter if it's nonsense. Most parents are incomprehensible gibberish anyway, and AI clearly can do that. The USTPO apparently gave up trying to make sense of them decades ago. Wealth beyond your dreams awaits you if you act now.
P.S. I wouldn't object to a modest finders fee for pointing out this opportunity to you. Six or seven significant digits would be fine.
You seem to be under the impression that this project will be approached rationally. That's not impossible. But that's not the way I'd bet.
You're also supposing that Elon Musk and his DOGE whackjobs didn't fire most of the government folks with institutional knowledge of the state of ATC.. Again, not impossible. But ....
You're dead right of course.
But you are assuming competence and this is a Trump administration undertaking. That collection of scoundrels, sociopaths, and lunatics is suffering from delusions of competence
If history is any guide, you can bet on a seriously flawed contract being finalized in 6-12 months. 18 at the outside. The project will of course run into major problems, be years late, and will eventually overrun by $100B or more. Then another $30B will be spent trying to save it. A few pieces here and there will be salvaged. That'll take six or seven years. Maybe a decade. That'll put the next attempt to "fix" US Air Traffic Control somewhere around 2045.
In their defense, it's not like Big Tech in general and Microsoft in particular flaunt big banners claiming Lucrum ante securitatem to be their motto. On the other hand, the MAGA dudes and dudettes seem to think they are the smartest people in the world. They ought to know that tech security is largely Potempkin flavored.
Probably out of a combination of greed and/or sheer lazyness...
Greed and laziness to be sure. But ignorance, stupidity, and incompetence play a huge roll as well. Fact is, now and for the foreseeable future, if you want to secure your data, you simply can't connect your computers to the internet as we know it. Decision makers at all levels need to have that reality pounded into them.
We have spent three decades creating a huge, intractable, unsecurable shambles while operating under the misconception that we are making progress (toward what destination one wonders)? Fixing that mess is not just a matter of a few bug fixes and some gimmicks. Secure digital communications are quite likely possible But probably not in the framework we've established. And, we're throwing in 'AI' which apparently needs to spy on everyone, everywhere, always in order to work and seems to depend on dubious output filtering to keep from shipping secrets to anyone who asks.
The best, and exceedingly painful, answer I can come up with is. Leave the current internet in place, It's fit for entertainment, routine communication, and low level commercial activity. Nothing more. Secure the transport layers (assuming that's possible) so that messages always go to their intended destination -- and only there. Establish a simple, text based, secure networking protocol for major financial transactions and command and control of critical infrastructure. Regulate the bejusus out of AI. For now, shut it down except for research. Release AI technologies for general use only after their capabilities are thoroughly understood and the risks are deemed to be acceptable. And finally. unless and until, a 100% foolproof method of identifying a compromised computer can be worked out, computers can only ever operate in one of the two modes -- general internet or secure. Never both. And no switching between modes, Yes, you'll need two computers for that and two cell phones (although maybe you can put them in one physical case) if you plan to use the secure net as well as the general internet.
Yes, I know, none of that is going to happen. Say goodbye to secrecy. Or don't use the internet (Good luck on that).
Seems to me that you've missed the obvious. Sure AI makes mistakes. Lots of them. Some really bizarre. You wouldn't want AI doing jobs where mistakes are costly and/or lethal -- Air Traffic Control for example. But mistakes in the design of nuclear power plants and other infrastructure items like dams and bridges were/are/and will in the future be made by humans. Asking AI to review the human generated design adds very little cost and might occasionally save money and lives.
I might add that there look to be a few other applications where being wrong sometimes isn't a big deal and AI might be useful. All niche applications as far as I can see. Nowhere near enough to justify the staggering investments that are being made. Seems to me that AI is a tool. And not a tool that a sensible person would want to use all that often. But still, something one might want to have in the toolkit.
I downvoted this because AI might actually have spotted two major design issues at the Fukushima-daiichi facility :
1. The Fukushima facility was designed at a time when the potential for huge earthquakes associated with geological subduction zones was just beginning to be understood. As a result the potential strength of tsunami at the site was underestimated, The seawall protecting the facility was not high enough, AI reviews of the facility in the decades after construction when the geologic risk was better understood might well have spotlighted that problem.
2. There was probably adequate backup diesel generation on site. But it was located in an area that flooded and it was not hardened against flooding. If it had been better sited and/or properly hardened, the loss of grid power to the facility probably would not have led to the catastrophic failure of 3 of the six reactors and severe damage to another. Again, AI might have identified that problem.
I am not suggesting that AI can/should replace human inspection and review of nuclear facility design, construction, and operation. It's hard to imagine a worse idea, But AI might well be a useful supplement to human review.
So you think the damage will be contained to AI bubble stocks? Perhaps, but that's famously what Federal Reserve chairman thought with regard to subprime mortgages in 2007. Some of us out here are skeptical that big time market overpricing is confined to a few AI bubble stocks. Note that the s&p 500 Price Earnings ratio is hovering at about twice its long term average of 15.
I'm not sure what this "bail out" is supposed to accomplish either. From where I'm sitting, it looks like extortion and/or a permanent 10% tax on Intel shareholders future earnings. Clearly I'm wrong as the stock went up on the news. And the stock market is always right ... except in 1929, 2000, and 2008 of course. But I'd sure like someone to explain to me in simple terms why this deal benefits Intel rather than adding a few more problems to the company's already impressive problem list.
Messenger: "The peasants are revolting."
King: "They certainly are."
Various sources apparently
==================
It's probably because I'm old, grumpy and set in my ways, but I'm inclined to agree with the peasants on this one. There's no obvious reason to store vast amounts of "data" in multiple places. And it's hard to see who benefits significantly other than the wheeler dealers promoting the deals. Sort of like building magnificent cathedrals and monuments while the populace starves and lives in squalor.
===================
Possibly relevant:
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Ozymandias: Percy Bysshe Shelley
One precedent other than the GM/Chrysler bailout came to me overnight. In the early 1960s, the government organized Comsat Corp a joint government/commercial project presumably intended to seed the satellite telecommunications industry -- well, sort of anyway. It wasn't a runaway success, but neither was it an abject failure. It did put communications satellites into orbit and provide services. After a few decades it also acquired ownership of a couple of North American professional sports teams. (Mission drift?) It was eventually (2000 or so) acquired by Lockheed-Martin. Not sure how the taxpayers made out
Indeed. One way to produce Tritium that sounds feasible at the cocktail napkin stage is to bombard natural Lithium with slow Neutrons. Some of the small percentage of Lithium-6 (between 2 and 8%) will fission into an atom of Helium-4 and one of Tritium. The reaction is exothermic BTW. But the heat may be more of a nuisance than a useful power source.
Putting a nuclear reactor on the moon seems well within the scope of current technology. Making a 100KW reactor work on the moon once it gets there seems a bit more challenging. We're talking a heat engine here. Where is the cool side going to dump the excess heat? Space? I'll take a pretty big radiator to dump 100KW to space I should think. And the radiator would need a sun shield? It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, they come up with.
I imagine human fighter pilots will be around for quite some time, albeit fewer of them as one assumes that over time more and more missions can be trusted to unmanned craft. Depending on the future of 100% reliable control links, it's also possible that even some of the missions requiring human control might be executed using unmanned remotely controlled craft. Human pilot, but he or she is sitting at a console in an undisclosed location.
Seriously, I doubt they'll build anything in one year other than maybe a mockup and perhaps some test jigs. We're talking nuclear here. The real reactor probably needs some specialized parts made from exotic materials. That likely means long lead times. And they probably can't order the parts until the design is locked in.
Now, if plant operators have the safety culture of the Rickover NNPP we'd in good shape.
Yes, you're right. And some of them might be. But really, you have to know that if the world is paved with small nuclear reactors, most will be run by bean counters and MBAs. And those guys will no doubt blow the damn things up with dreary regularity.
Marketing speak:
"“In the long run, while tariffs will pose certain challenges, they also provide us with opportunities to accelerate the optimization of our layout for the global supply chain,” she said. “As we expand into new markets and serve a wider range of customers, I believe this presents a challenge and also creates long-term development opportunities. Overall, we are confident that we can transform this challenge into a competitive advantage.” ®"
English Translation:
If the idiot Americans want to build an iron curtain around their country, we'll just sell our chips to everyone else.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
