I asked an employee for something by part number and described it. The answer he gave was "why the hell would you want that anyways? I've worked here 13 years and never seen one". I found it on a shelf a few levels up and used a grounding rod from the electrical section to spear it and bring it down to ground level
They aren't making any laptops or smartphones, but Russia has no problem demolishing Ukraine using weapons powered by domestic 160nm-350nm chips and vacuum tubes.
So 5nm should be more than enough for cutting edge defense applications.
I can't really see how Altman is a sociopath? I think his current vision greatly exceeds the technical capabilities that OpenAI can ever build. OpenAI seems to have produced some genuinely interesting products on the other hand. But they aren't profitable at present and I don't see it happening.
Altman talks to the talk of a CEO who is going to build a company that can change the world. It's what investors want to hear. He seems to make as many attempts as possible to actually execute on that. I think most of those plans are unlikely to be as successful as desired. But this isn't Theranos level fraud, where what they are trying to build is obviously impossible.
Isn't that the case for most ultra-rich CEOs? All of the CEOs of Microsoft apparently started off either building product or helping develop the business into something profitable. But at some point it doesn't really matter if you have the skills to be an individual contributor, a team leader, or even a vice president. The role of CEO mostly is to keep investors happy & secondarily to put the right people in the company together to make things happen.
Disney gets the opportunity to tell the board and investors that they are now partnered with a leading AI company. In effect, Disney is now an AI company as well. They haven't really done anything, but if anyone asks they can just say "of course we're at the forefront of the entertainment industry. We're already leveraging AI in our partnerships"
It came out at a time when Shanghai Diesel Engine Company was totally government owned.
Shanghai Diesel Engine Co., Ltd. (SDEC) originated from the Shanghai Diesel Engine Factory, founded in 1947 under the name Wusong Manufacturing Plant of the China Agricultural Machinery Company, where it produced a trial batch of 5 HP gasoline engines. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the factory was renamed Wusong Machinery Plant, which later began mass-producing a single-cylinder, horizontal 12 HP diesel engine operating at 750 rpm. In August 1953, it officially became Shanghai Diesel Engine Factory and started independently designing and manufacturing diesel engines.[1]
That's the engine - that little 12HP single-cylinder horizontal Diesel engine. It's up to 20HP now; there's been progress in 70 years. Here's a full teardown and overhaul.[2]
It doesn't seem to resemble any common US, UK, Japanese, or German diesel engine of the 1940s. All those countries built small Diesels in that period, but none are close to the Chinese design. Don't know who the designer was, though. If you asked SDEC, they'd probably tell you.
There's a transatlantic trade in rubble? I've certainly seen rubble from demolished historic structures wind up in unusual places, but it almost always nearby
During the war, ships were arriving from the US packed with munitions. They needed something to take back, just for ballast, so they used rubble from the destroyed city.
DMCA isn't intrinsically copyright. It's a questionable attempt at a safe harbor provision that has horrible provisions for abuse. I'm not even of the opinion that copyright about computer software is poorly executed. It's mostly software patents that don't make any sense to me. When you have a concept that essentially every mathematics undergrad is familiar with getting labels slapped on it & called a novel technique. It's made worse by the fact that the patent office itself isn't enabled to perform any real review. There are no shortage of impossible devices patented each year in the category of things perpetual motion.
reply