HN user
It depends on how one defines transistor but I believe there is no known fundamental limit. If transistor as switch is sufficient then single-atom transistors have been demonstrated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-atom_transistor
All it means is average transistor density went up. It's supposed to mean by 2x but, in practice, it doesn't even mean that really. i.e. "At the 2020 IEEE IEDM conference, TSMC reported their 5nm process had 1.84x higher density than their 7nm process." [2]
And there are a lot stuff in there besides transistors: contacts, metal traces, power routing, ...
And there's also the quality of the software that draws the transistors. (No one draws billions of transistors by hand) And to further complicate things, there are many good reasons to make your transistors larger than the minimize size, and in fact many are.
So, it vaguely means density went up and unfortunately there isn't a single resource that says how to measure it or what the limit is.
Come to think of it, It's kind of like Moore's Law (the topic of TFA) in that it used to have a definite meaning. But then the meaning sort of evolved over time into something else without society actually agreeing on what that "else" was.
I think it's also a direct consequence of scale and the commoditization of most software.
You can't have people on a team of 10 all going in their own direction on their own schedule. It's too unpredictable and there are deadlines and contracts to fulfill. And for most commercial software, I don't need the team to research how to do it. We know exactly how to do it. We need the team to execute the plan.
It absolutely sucks, but that's the reality of most coding jobs. At least in my experience.
Probably we need a firmer definition of "create" but I think the main thing that holds people back is it takes a ton of work and focus to get to state-of-the-art in most fields. Many people won't be able to receive that kind of training and make that kind of investment in time for many reasons. So already it's going to be rare. Then combine that with your reasons, and it's super rare. On the other hand, the population is big, so it does happen. :)
Moore's Law has been entirely coopted by the media and, as such, lost all meaning and predictive power, which is what made it famous in the first place. Once upon a time it was a useful tool to plan programs with.
So outside of popular culture, it is dead...
I suppose it depends on who the measure is for.
If it's for engineers: In 2024 a single metric is going to be far too simplistic to realistically drive any decision.
If it's for the general public: Any metric will do, might as well stick with nm.
If developer grievances about Apple have been simmering for years, perhaps they can simmer longer.
Apple will make the change that they're forced to make. Developers aren't forcing anything at the moment, but what exactly are they being forced to do by the EU? That's what's being learned.
As a long time Apple fan myself I'm certain, Apple fans have never been happy. :)
This will all blow over in a week. But once the control is lost, it’s gone forever.
If it’s not this then it’s that. I.e. https://time.com/6835975/google-gemini-backlash-bias/
None of the large tech companies lack of embarrassment.
They want to minimize the amount of control lost. You cant find the limit without testing the limit.
It's getting denser, but just not as fast as logic. https://www.techpowerup.com/309331/tsmc-n3-nodes-show-sram-s...
You can make them smaller (like 20%) but those SRAMs suck electrically so no product actually uses them. So in actually shipping products the SRAM is roughly the same size (like 5% smaller).
One needs to remember these things are drawn by algorithms (no one is by hand drawing billions of transistors) and there have been 20 years+ of advancements on the algorithms that draw SRAM and because of the regularity of SRAM there's more opportunity to pack.
There's just not that much fat to cut in a SRAM structure (that's purely optimizing for density) so in many ways SRAM structures are the true measure of how small things are, and they are in fact used that way. And things are really really tiny already.
No.
Every shrink, in theory, is supposed to mean you could have twice as many transistors per unit area. So although dimensions of transistors are similar from say 7nm to 5nm one should be able to pack twice as many in. And so when the foundry can double the transistor density, as measured over large areas, it gets to go to the next lowest number in the sequence. i.e. (7^2)/2 is roughly 5^2.
You won’t get that many, for lots of EE reasons, but in theory you could.
It’s also important to remember there are lots of things other than transistors in there. Contacts, wires, etc etc. and they have dimensions and packing requirements too. And if you can shrink or more tightly pack those things, transistor density also rises.
schools/universities appear to systematically increasingly de-prioritize, presumably because it is seen as too technical.
The statement is correct: universities are de-prioritizing systems programming, but not for the reason you state.
Since I've been working with Universities, I've come to appreciate their fundamental problem. There's a lot of potential material to cover in a finite number of hours, which is horrifying short if you're the one to allocate them.
The amount of information one could know in our field grows exponentially with time, and we're well past the point of overflow. So yes, systems programming is getting less class time in the general track, but that's only because it's less relevant to more and more students every year, so it makes sense.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johanmoreno/2021/01/22/waymo-ce...
"Krafcik made the point, as some analysts predict autonomous vehicle technology will be too expensive to adopt en masse. Waymo uses LiDAR sensors in its vehicles, which previously retailed for as much as $75,000. In 2019, Krafcik signaled that its Honeycomb LiDAR units now cost around $7,500."
And price is only going to come down over time.
If they want me to take a ride tomorrow, they won't cancel on me today.