Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #88473 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-28 00:36 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-07-07 07:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-28 00:36 -0400
[HK01]IBM研發首款0.7nm晶片 指甲大小塞滿1000億電晶體 效能飆升50% "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 00:01 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-28 18:09 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 13:11 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:39 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 19:20 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-29 12:57 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 05:14 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:51 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 12:06 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 18:51 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-30 17:58 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 01:15 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:15 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:51 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:16 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:05 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-01 17:43 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 20:23 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 01:57 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 16:48 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 21:32 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 18:15 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:03 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 09:32 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 17:06 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-04 19:24 +0200
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 18:20 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:37 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-04 19:20 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-04 20:28 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 20:47 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-05 00:33 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 20:42 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:51 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-05 06:57 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-05 13:38 +0200
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:45 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-05 10:49 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-06 00:33 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-06 13:19 +0200
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-06 12:39 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-08 07:49 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-08 12:04 +0200
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-08 11:10 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-06 12:32 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 00:48 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:45 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer.... physics? "quantum"? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:24 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:13 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:29 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 04:22 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:41 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 01:56 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:04 +0800
Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 16:50 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 21:26 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 18:11 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-30 22:09 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:29 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:11 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:08 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-08 07:46 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-08 12:05 +0200
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-08 11:13 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:27 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 12:18 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-30 17:32 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:40 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:53 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:01 +0100
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 00:17 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:37 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:33 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:28 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:04 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-07-01 04:33 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:34 -0400
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-07 01:21 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-07 04:14 +0000
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-07 08:31 +0200
Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 07:51 -0700
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-28 00:36 -0400 |
| Subject | IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip |
| Message-ID | <atucnXQSE-dsOd33nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
https://www.techspot.com/news/112907-ibm-unveils-sub-1-nanometer-chip-architecture-stacks.html IBM unveils sub-1-nanometer chip architecture that stacks 100 billion transistors onto a fingernail-sized processor . . . Pretty impressive ... and stacking two (three?) layers really packs a lot in. NOT sure how they deal with the HEAT in the stacked design. 100 billion ... how many in the i4004 ?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 00:01 +0800 |
| Subject | [HK01]IBM研發首款0.7nm晶片 指甲大小塞滿1000億電晶體 效能飆升50% |
| Message-ID | <111rgge$3n803$3@toylet.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88473 |
[HK01]IBM研發首款0.7nm晶片 指甲大小塞滿1000億電晶體 效能飆升50%
全文見:
<https://www.hk01.com/%E6%95%B8%E7%A2%BC%E7%94%9F%E6%B4%BB/60364077/>
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-28 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Ird0S.51742$fs29.6013@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #88473 |
On 2026-06-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > https://www.techspot.com/news/112907-ibm-unveils-sub-1-nanometer-chip-architecture-stacks.html > > IBM unveils sub-1-nanometer chip architecture that stacks 100 > billion transistors onto a fingernail-sized processor > > . . . > > Pretty impressive ... and stacking two (three?) layers > really packs a lot in. > > NOT sure how they deal with the HEAT in the stacked > design. > > 100 billion ... how many in the i4004 ? Dunno - but I do remember that manufacturers hit a wall for a while when trying to get below 1 micrometer. It took some time before memory chips larger than 64K became available. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | No artificial \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | intelligence was X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | used in the creation / \ if you read it the right way. | of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 13:11 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <111sup8$349r$3@toylet.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88494 |
On 6/29/2026 2:09 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-06-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>
>> IBM unveils sub-1-nanometer chip architecture that stacks 100
>> billion transistors onto a fingernail-sized processor
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> Pretty impressive ... and stacking two (three?) layers
>> really packs a lot in.
>>
>> NOT sure how they deal with the HEAT in the stacked
>> design.
>>
>> 100 billion ... how many in the i4004 ?
>
> Dunno - but I do remember that manufacturers hit a wall for
> a while when trying to get below 1 micrometer. It took some
> time before memory chips larger than 64K became available.
Wall? Or Seal? :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 01:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VuOcnRx1hrX_mN_3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88499 |
On 6/29/26 01:11, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 6/29/2026 2:09 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-06-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> >>> IBM unveils sub-1-nanometer chip architecture that stacks 100 >>> billion transistors onto a fingernail-sized processor >>> >>> . . . >>> >>> Pretty impressive ... and stacking two (three?) layers >>> really packs a lot in. >>> >>> NOT sure how they deal with the HEAT in the stacked >>> design. >>> >>> 100 billion ... how many in the i4004 ? >> >> Dunno - but I do remember that manufacturers hit a wall for >> a while when trying to get below 1 micrometer. It took some >> time before memory chips larger than 64K became available. > > Wall? Or Seal? :) Amazed they were able to get this small - but do expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else to go using any conventional approaches. Anything much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it, some kind of weird quantum stuff. STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 19:20 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <111tkdh$a0h0$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88502 |
On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote:
>
> Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
> expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
> talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
> to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
> much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
> some kind of weird quantum stuff.
>
> STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?
Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
Is zero the seal or wall? :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111tmip$acq7$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88518 |
On 29/06/2026 12:20, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote: >> >> Amazed they were able to get this small - but do >> expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're >> talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else >> to go using any conventional approaches. Anything >> much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it, >> some kind of weird quantum stuff. >> >> STABLE deca-state logic maybe ? > > Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips? > > Is zero the seal or wall? :) > No. The wall is the quantum level issues. Below a certain size the probability that what constitutes a logic one is so few electrons that sometimes it looks like a zero, becomes significant. -- New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 05:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <LMacnao1i-yBFN73nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88518 |
On 6/29/26 07:20, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote: >> >> Amazed they were able to get this small - but do >> expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're >> talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else >> to go using any conventional approaches. Anything >> much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it, >> some kind of weird quantum stuff. >> >> STABLE deca-state logic maybe ? > > Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips? > > Is zero the seal or wall? :) Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any normal electronics, that's IT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 21:51 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <1120hkl$14c6l$2@toylet.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88532 |
On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>
>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>
>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>
> Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
> normal electronics, that's IT.
You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
That's a void, empty, nothing. :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 12:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qcOdnYnjabFedN73nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88533 |
On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote: >>> >>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips? >>> >>> Is zero the seal or wall? :) >> >> Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any >> normal electronics, that's IT. > > > You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip. > > That's a void, empty, nothing. :) "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures. Can't go any smaller. Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices and suffer from the uncertainty principle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <reU0S.3$kfzb.0@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #88537 |
On 2026-06-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > >> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote: >> >>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips? >>>> >>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :) >>> >>> Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any >>> normal electronics, that's IT. >> >> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip. >> >> That's a void, empty, nothing. :) I tried to think through the implications of this but I got a divide error. > "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures. > Can't go any smaller. > > Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum > effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum > stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices > and suffer from the uncertainty principle. Omigod, we might have to revive the KISS principle in order to get anything more done. The proponents of complexity as a weapon will be so disappointed... -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | No artificial \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | intelligence was X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | used in the creation / \ if you read it the right way. | of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 17:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1121e5h$1erv9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88541 |
On Tue, 6/30/2026 2:51 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-06-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>>>
>>>> Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>>> normal electronics, that's IT.
>>>
>>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
>>>
>>> That's a void, empty, nothing. :)
>
> I tried to think through the implications of this
> but I got a divide error.
>
>> "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures.
>> Can't go any smaller.
>>
>> Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum
>> effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum
>> stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices
>> and suffer from the uncertainty principle.
>
> Omigod, we might have to revive the KISS principle
> in order to get anything more done. The proponents
> of complexity as a weapon will be so disappointed...
>
This article is from the year 2001.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/04/new-process-makes-near-atomic-scale-nanobumps
"A nanometer is equal to the width of 3 silicon atoms."
"But the technique is limited by the wavelength of light, and to date,
commercial optical lithography has not been able to produce features
smaller than 150 nanometers in width."
OMG, we'd doomed, he said. Progress, stopped in its very tracks.
The AM table radio can never exist now. We will be loading our
muskets with ball and powder, like always. I will have to fold
my own towels now, as a $20,000 robot to do the job can never exist.
Articles like that put the pace of progress in perspective.
Whether we do a thing, depends on what it costs. So while IBM
can publish an article, it's not a given that this scheme will
work out. If it adds even a few more process steps, it will be
rejected as impractical. It currently takes 12 weeks to make
a chip. If there is an earthquake, a single quarter of yearly output
is thrown away (any wafers inside process machines, being etched,
doped, or sputtered, thrown away). If the manufacturing time of chips
were to double, to 24 weeks (about half a year), then the exposure
to earthquake losses, increases.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 01:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RdadnT96Wu3MP9n3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88545 |
On 6/30/26 17:58, Paul wrote: > On Tue, 6/30/2026 2:51 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-06-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :) >>>>> >>>>> Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any >>>>> normal electronics, that's IT. >>>> >>>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip. >>>> >>>> That's a void, empty, nothing. :) >> >> I tried to think through the implications of this >> but I got a divide error. >> >>> "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures. >>> Can't go any smaller. >>> >>> Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum >>> effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum >>> stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices >>> and suffer from the uncertainty principle. >> >> Omigod, we might have to revive the KISS principle >> in order to get anything more done. The proponents >> of complexity as a weapon will be so disappointed... >> > > This article is from the year 2001. > > https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/04/new-process-makes-near-atomic-scale-nanobumps > > "A nanometer is equal to the width of 3 silicon atoms." > > "But the technique is limited by the wavelength of light, and to date, > commercial optical lithography has not been able to produce features > smaller than 150 nanometers in width." > > OMG, we'd doomed, he said. Progress, stopped in its very tracks. > The AM table radio can never exist now. We will be loading our > muskets with ball and powder, like always. I will have to fold > my own towels now, as a $20,000 robot to do the job can never exist. > > Articles like that put the pace of progress in perspective. > > Whether we do a thing, depends on what it costs. So while IBM > can publish an article, it's not a given that this scheme will > work out. If it adds even a few more process steps, it will be > rejected as impractical. It currently takes 12 weeks to make > a chip. If there is an earthquake, a single quarter of yearly output > is thrown away (any wafers inside process machines, being etched, > doped, or sputtered, thrown away). If the manufacturing time of chips > were to double, to 24 weeks (about half a year), then the exposure > to earthquake losses, increases. > > Paul Apparently IBM has indeed BUILT these chips. Whether they can be "commercial" is yet to be seen, but they can license their techniques and hardware. Even ONE nanometer, stacked, chips would have a large market. If you can't go faster then do MORE with the old speed/space. But, for electronic reasons, the increasing quantum issues, this IS probably about as far as possible. Some whole new paradigms will be needed and quantum will always suffer from uncertainty, not reliable enough for yer financial shit. Think the Taxman is gonna give you 'quantum uncertainty' slack ? Apparently Ilhan Omar was using a quantum computer when doing her last tax statement :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 10:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1122lqu$1o867$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88560 |
On 01/07/2026 06:15, c186282 wrote: > Apparently IBM has indeed BUILT these chips. > "I can call spirits, from the vasty deep' 'Why so can I or any man, but will they come when you do so call them?' I have sub nanometre chips in my hand right now. They don't do anything or work, of course and are invisible to the naked eye and indeed the most powerful scanning electron microscopes. But they do wonders for stock prices. -- The New Left are the people they warned you about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 23:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naj34hFgpa7U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #88541 |
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:51:03 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> >>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips? >>>>> >>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? >>>> >>>> Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any normal >>>> electronics, that's IT. >>> >>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip. >>> >>> That's a void, empty, nothing. > > I tried to think through the implications of this but I got a divide > error. "Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form. Sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousness are also like this." https://www.izauk.org/multimedia-archive/hannya-shingyo-the-heart-sutra/ Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 03:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RdadnTp6Wu1SI9n3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #88552 |
On 6/30/26 19:51, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:51:03 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2026-06-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? >>>>> >>>>> Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any normal >>>>> electronics, that's IT. >>>> >>>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip. >>>> >>>> That's a void, empty, nothing. >> >> I tried to think through the implications of this but I got a divide >> error. > > "Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not > differ from form. Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form. > Sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousness are also like > this." > > https://www.izauk.org/multimedia-archive/hannya-shingyo-the-heart-sutra/ > > Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha. Umm ... so we're JUST MAKING IT UP. Don't disagree for the most part. The Buddha, even Plato to an extent, realized this 2500 years ago. We YEARN for the anthropomorphic ... some hint that the universe/reality cleaves to human-type perceptions. Nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 10:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1122l81$1o867$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88566 |
On 01/07/2026 08:16, c186282 wrote:
> Umm ... so we're JUST MAKING IT UP.
>
Yes, but only the form. The substances is still there.
> Don't disagree for the most part. The Buddha,
> even Plato to an extent, realized this 2500
> years ago.
>
> We YEARN for the anthropomorphic ... some hint
> that the universe/reality cleaves to human-type
> perceptions.
People yearn even more for someone who can assure them they Know Where
Its At.
Even when its patently obvious they are making it all up.
Moses realized that giving them some relatively harmless shit would stop
a lot of argument.
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."
- Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nal1udFqk4qU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #88574 |
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:05:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Moses realized that giving them some relatively harmless shit would stop > a lot of argument. His shit proved to be anything but harmless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 20:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1123pfi$23eaj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88586 |
On 01/07/2026 18:43, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:05:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Moses realized that giving them some relatively harmless shit would stop >> a lot of argument. > > His shit proved to be anything but harmless. Well that of courses is your take. He couldnt see the rise of the American Bigot back then in the bronze age. -- The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-02 01:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naluspFtd8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #88588 |
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 20:23:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 01/07/2026 18:43, rbowman wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:05:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> Moses realized that giving them some relatively harmless shit would >>> stop a lot of argument. >> >> His shit proved to be anything but harmless. > > Well that of courses is your take. He couldnt see the rise of the > American Bigot back then in the bronze age. https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/32.html "So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him. 27 Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’ ” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died." And that's before the genocide of anybody living in the the area their tribal god supposedly promised to them but it's after the little adventure in Egypt. Read that one again and think about what it's really saying. Get sent to Egypt as a slave, work your way up to a position of power with some hocus pocus. Send home to you tribe and tell them to come on over the pickings are good. Corner the grain market and then when the crops fail trade it back to the people you stole it from for their land and any cash they have. When the natives finally get pissed, have your tribal god send a few plagues and so forth. The steal everything that isn't tied down, I think the biblical term is despoil, and beat feet. I've read Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, Tao, Greek and other literature but most people don't write their sacred book about what a bunch of pricks they are. The Christians could have made a clean break but waffled. Islam is a Christian heresy for people who can't wrap their mind around trinitarian doctrine. And here we are now, SSDD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web