roadbuster

The only way to achieve this is to either put a runtime software check on a variable whenever it's assigned/used, or to literally add hardware support in processors themselves which literally throws an interrupt when a "neverShallBeZero" variable is assigned to zero.

There's no viable way to statically prove at compile-time that these variables will never become zero at runtime, ultimately forcing a system of endless runtime checks (be it software or hardware)... which is why processors already throw exception interrupts when division by zero is attempted.

Indeed, this is a problem for an energetic student who has free access to every tool in the Cadence, Synopsys, and Mentor portfolios: take the GDS-II layout, run it through extraction, generate a netlist, convert to higher-level blocks ("netlist-to-gate recovery"), translate to RTL HDL, then attempt to work out "what it does."

This is just a job posting in disguise for Jane Street: solve the puzzle, get a call from one of their recruiters.

Great project & article. Beyond the use of verilog, I couldn't find a description of the EDA stack. What tooling is used for the physical stages of design: place & route, LVS, DRC, and electrical circuit simulation (SPICE)?

> I don't get how this is unique to GPU clusters

It isn't, and you're right. This is just a long-winded article by someone who thinks they've come across a deep, crucial insight.

I witnessed a bank foreclosure stemming from large, unpaid loans to a lumber mill. The bank absolutely didn't want to take possession of the operation, but had no choice when the founder decided to call it a day.

The bank had no idea what to do with finished lumber sitting in the drying ovens, let alone the entirety of mill infrastructure itself. After struggling to find a buyer, they hired the founder as a consultant to handle liquidation. The same would happen with a repossessed datacentre.

There is no substance. It's navel-gazing dribble.

The "about" section of the website is equally vacuous:

    SmolNero is a philosophical startup rooted
    in first-principles thinking.

    We explore how humans relate to technology—
    how we speak to it, depend on it, thank it,
    and sometimes forget it’s there at all.
    
    We don’t claim expertise. We see ourselves 
    as translators—working at the crossroads of
    emotion and programming, curiosity and care

(The two M-dashes are also suspicious)

If there weren't "clear owners," who was approving code changes for merge?

Every other major arm of Microsoft has been tasked with burdensome controls over tracking any and all production changes to source code, but Github was operating without a useful system and record of ownership for nearly 80% of its repos (11000/14000)?

3000 words which can be distilled down to 10:

"Cream and egg yolk are expensive; industry tightens its belt."

> It really wasn't a bad operating system

It was a wonderful operating system. It provided consumer desktop essentials (Plug & Play, DirectX 7, ACPI power management, Windows Driver Model (WDM), and support for consumer I/O interfaces like USB and Firewire) alongside a modernized UI, all running atop the NT kernel. I was extremely lucky to receive a free copy of Windows 2000 Pro as a student, because I rode that horse for years.

Then Microsoft added a green start button and dark blue backgrounds and packaged Win2k for home users as Windows XP.

Looking at the categories should tell you what happened (lifestyle & fashion, finance, travel, parenting, food & recipes):

They moved to Youtube/Instagram/TikTok for better reach, a larger, total audience, and improved monetization

I think you are taking an excessive interpretation of what was suggested.

Let's level-set on the issue: Of late, GH has suffered a continuous stream of noteworthy outages. It is hypothesized the underlying cause of the instability has been the dramatic rise in submissions from coding agents ("AI"). The open question is how (or whether) GH can get load at a manageable level, with the proposal being, 'don't immediately allocate build/compute resources against any and all submissions.'

I don't see why that is equivalent to rampant disenfranchisement in the open source community. I believe what people have in mind is closer to, "don't immediately trigger an expensive build process as soon as someone submits a pull request."

> would break the entire model

The "model" - GH effectively allowing an overload of their infra - is already broken

> How would a random kid in a 3rd world country ever get noticed enough to enter a trust circle

By submitting a quality change with a clear description, preferably with unit tests? Is that no longer considered an acceptable hurdle?

I think Clearmotion has a very interesting technology and product (ride stabilization), but let's paint a full picture here: the company was founded in 2009, took on $370 million in funding, and only recently landed large contracts (a $1 billion dollar deal in 2023 with Chinese auto manufacturer, Nio).

I'm sure they were in a constant struggle for survival and had to "move fast" to stay afloat, but their technology is more than a decade in the making.

Yes. But, looking at BRCM/AVGO's stock chart, I may have made a mistake.