While you are correct that it is Intel trying to catch TSMC, you are wrong about the origin of backside power delivery. The idea originated at Intel sometime ago, but it would be very ironic if TSMC implements it before Intel...
Intel is not the inventor of backside power, they are the first planning to commercialize it. It's similar to finfets and GAA where Intel or Samsung may be first to commercialize an implementation of those technologies, but the actual conceptual origin and first demonstrations are at universities or research consortiums like IMEC. Example Imec demonstrating backside power in 2019 https://spectrum.ieee.org/buried-power-lines-make-memory-fas... far before powerVia was announced.
Yeah I hear this every time, but very few small modular reactors (SMRs) have actually been built on account of economic and safety barriers to building them [1].
Now, I'm sure these are soluble problems. I'm by no means anti-SMR. But most of the actual serious proposals I've heard discussed for decarbonization lean much more heavily on already-existing technologies such as solar panels, which are getting cheaper and more efficient every year and which we are putting in the grid right now.
Most of the time, when I hear people talking about SMRs, it's as an excuse to do nothing. "This research tech will solve the climate problem, so all we need to do now is wait for it to pay off." Like the original poster in this thread, who claimed that a lack of investment in nuclear somehow proves that things aren't really that bad.
Apparently, the IPCC does expect and hope for substantial increases in nuclear power as a portion of our energy supply [2][3], but "[a]chieving a rapid decarbonization of the electricity sector will require, at first, deploying proven technology," presumably because nuclear on its own is not enough, and because SMRs are too experimental to lean on in any substantial way.
The title is fraud. It fraudulently report 85% accuracy gain.But the inside it is something else. "FixMatch is a recent semi-supervised approach by Sohn et al. from Google Brain that improved the state of the art in semi-supervised learning(SSL). It is a simpler combination of previous methods such as UDA and ReMixMatch. In this post, we will understand the concept of FixMatch and also see it got 78% median accuracy and 84% maximum accuracy on CIFAR-10 with just 10 labeled images."
Admittedly I haven't researched it that well, but I'm curious how often they would have to aim their sensors at the sun to receive from a neighboring satellite. I'd have to assume those links would need to be subtracted from the system, which could slightly drive up latency around sun up and sun down for a part of the planet.
The sun is pretty small compared to space, something like .0005% of the full sky sphere, and almost half that time it's covered by Earth. Since there's no atmospheric glare in space, I suspect it's not a problem given decent engineering.
Given communication is point-to-point, and very coherent, I'd think this is extremely easy to solve if glare in the system was a real issue. Aim the receiver through a tube (or array of tubes) painted black, for instance. Certainly easier than building an equally precise telescope.
One major difference between Oumuamua and Ultima Thule, is that Ultima Thule is very accurately following a known gravitational trajectory. Oumuamua is not, and that factors greatly into the astronomer's point of view.
Also, from the article, while traversing the solar system Oumuamua apparently changed velocity in a way not explained by local gravity or gas discharge. U.Thule may have had odd lighting, but I don't recall hearing it moved in an odd way.
"The most unusual fact about it is that it deviates from an orbit that is shaped purely by the gravitational force of the sun. Usually, in the case of comets, such a deviation is caused by the evaporation of ice on the surface of the comet, creating gases that push the comet, like the rocket effect. That’s what comets show: a cometary tail of evaporated gas. We don’t see a cometary tail here, but, nevertheless, we see a deviation from the expected orbit. And that is the thing that triggered the paper. Once I realized that the object is moving differently than expected, then the question is what gives it the extra push. And, by the way, after our paper appeared, another paper came out with analysis that showed very tight limits on any carbon-based molecules in the vicinity of this object."
Most of these ice mass measurements are made using GRACE not physical height / GPS measurements. Ice mass loss appears to be accelerating by multiple forms of measurement.
Fine, it's GRACE. So GRACE has an accuracy of 0.001%? Really? Or rather, is there any estimation technique to measure the ice mass of a whole continent with accuracy of one thousandth of one percent?
Wait, actually they claim their accuracy is much higher, sometimes more precise than 0.0002% or even 0.0001% (I kid you not).
Here's the wiki link for GRACE [1]. It states that during 2003-2013 the ice loss was 67±44 Gt per year. That ±44 Gt represents ±0.00017%
Anyway, here's the actual abstract of the nature article [2]
"The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6 ± 3.9 millimetres (errors are one standard deviation). Over this period, ocean-driven melting has caused rates of ice loss from West Antarctica to increase from 53 ± 29 billion to 159 ± 26 billion tonnes per year; ice-shelf collapse has increased the rate of ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula from 7 ± 13 billion to 33 ± 16 billion tonnes per year. We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain."
For those not familiar, East Antarctica is much bigger than West Antarctica, so it's natural for any measurement to be least certain. However, take a look at the prior estimates from the GRACE studies [3]
"An early analysis of GRACE-based studies data indicated that the EAIS was losing mass at a rate of 57 billion tonnes per year and that the total Antarctic ice sheet (including WAIS, and EAIS coastal areas) was losing mass at a rate of 152 cubic kilometers (c. 139 billion tonnes) per year.[4] A more recent estimate published in November 2012 and based on the GRACE data as well as on an improved glacial isostatic adjustment model indicates that East Antarctica actually gained mass from 2002 to 2010 at a rate of 60 ± 13 Gt/y."
This ± 13 Gt accuracy listed here is well below 0.0001%
> Fine, it's GRACE. So GRACE has an accuracy of 0.001%? Really? Or rather, is there any estimation technique to measure the ice mass of a whole continent with accuracy of one thousandth of one percent?
If some areas are losing/gaining meters then your 1.8cm average is irrelevant as it's not the resolution they're looking at.
Your argument is misleading because it assumes uniform ice loss across the continent, it's a straw man you create and then destroy. Time to turn that skepticism inwards.
>Your argument is misleading because it assumes uniform ice loss across the continent
I'm not assuming that. "Average" and "uniform" are two different things. I never said anything about "uniform".
Take a look at the ice loss visualization [1] from NASA's website. On the west side there are ice losses as high as 300m (dark red), on the east side some ice gains of about 100m (light blue). All those losses and gains are estimated with some instruments. If you are in one of the areas where the ice loss was estimated to be about 100m, you look at your initial elevation, final elevation and take the difference. Will you elevation difference be -100m, or -98m? There will be some measurement uncertainty. Overall, uncertainties from different instruments tend to cancel out, that't the law of large numbers. Overall, I doubt we have that many numbers (or so little individual measurement uncertainty to begin with) to end up with a final measurement uncertainty that is so small.
Take a look at article [2] about the estimation of precipitations in Antarctica. It was published in March 2018 in the journal "Polar Science" owned by Elsevier, which as far as I can tell does not publish junk articles. The general tone is that there are large uncertainties in the estimation of precipitation in Antarctica.
"The study of Antarctic precipitation has attracted a lot of attention recently. The reliability of climate models in simulating Antarctic precipitation, however, is still debatable"
"The current method of data collection relies on measurement with limited temporal basis, with distances between measurements exceeding 1300 km (Knuth et al., 2010). This makes instrumental-based measurement of precipitation in Antarctic highly unreliable (Genthon et al., 2003)."
Of course, such an article does not get much press. How would one report it? "New research shows large uncertainties in our understanding of the mass balance in Antarctica" ?
The 0.00001 accuracy argument you are making seems like a red herring.
If I measure myself on a scale, do you discredit the measurement because the scale produces a value that is some fractional, fractional, fractional percent of the Earth's mass?
Why are you talking about Earth's mass? We are talking about Antarctica here. If I weight myself on a scale that has 0.2 pound precision (like the one I have), and then somehow I tell people I lost 0.002 pounds, some people will be quite skeptical of my claims. In the case of Antarctica, how is one supposed to quantify the accuracy of its net ice loss? By comparing it with the mass of an elephant of a blue whale [1] ?
It's a red herring because the total quantity of ice in the Antarctic is irrelevant, both to how the loss rate is measured and the climate significance.
It's like looking at someone who's hair is falling out and saying "look, they're barely losing any weight at all!"
Yeah, but that same study showed that the rate of gains was slowing and more recent work by the same people using the same processes show it is now shedding mass.
>>This project is nothing more than a scam to fetch investors money.
I'm unaware of Musk asking for any particular investment in a Hyperloop project. Most Hyperloop projects are independent parties working on the idea on their own volition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Any investor should know what they're getting into when investing in a high risk experiment like "Hyperloop". I'm just calling B.S. on it's some sort of scam.
Along with the US national government. About $17 trillion not owed to itself. Added 0.7 trillion in 2017.
Cost to finance $17T per year at various interest rates (today's average rate on the US debt is about 2%):
rate, cost($B), % of 2017 Fed income
2%, 340, 15%
3%, 510, 22%
5%, 850, 37%
8%, 1360, 59%
10%, 1700, 74%
As you can see by this chart (sorry about the formatting), the Fed has to keep interest rates low or the US will have little choice but to default on the debt.
I think a lot of people who ponder such things have concluded that the Fed will keep the interest rates low and the US will/are fudge/fudging the inflation numbers so that the Fed can still claim they are hitting their 2% target even though asset prices go through the roof. Who knows what the end game on such a plan will be, but some form of hyperinflation is not out of the question. All those people who are too scared of losing value on investments and just parking their savings in cash, will be very disappointed and confused if that happens.
US state & muni debt is comparatively mild versus the federal debt. About $1.2 trillion in state debt, versus roughly $1.9 trillion in tax revenue (the US Govt is at $21/$22 trillion in debt and ~$3.6 trillion in tax revenue).
Muni / local debt is about $1.8 trillion, with around $2 trillion in tax revenue.
The US Government's ratio of tax revenue to debt to be maintained, is about 10x worse than the states. States would have to boost their debt from $1.2t to $12t to match it.
US state and muni debt is also not particularly increasing. There hasn't been a jump in state debt since the great recession. Many of the states have to keep balanced budgets by law, or close to that. Mostly the only time they plunge into the red, is when their budgets explode for a few years during / after a recession (then they go back to trying to balance their budgets, and usually don't do a good job of paying down the recently acquired debt). States obviously don't have the luxury of doing a stealth tax on income & wealth via the currency to meet their funding needs.
Do your figures include unfunded retirement debt? That is a number that is hard to find and/or calculate. The Fed has relatively small amounts of this debt (if you don't count social security, laugh/cry). The states and munis, much more.
