[HN Gopher] Japan, U.S. to launch R&D for 2-nm chip mass production ___________________________________________________________________ Japan, U.S. to launch R&D for 2-nm chip mass production Author : gmays Score : 183 points Date : 2022-08-01 18:57 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (asia.nikkei.com) (TXT) w3m dump (asia.nikkei.com) | karmicthreat wrote: | I'm guessing this will build off the existing EUV light sources | and just scale up multi-patterning? | 11thEarlOfMar wrote: | In order for this to work, we need to understand why the US and | Japan are behind Taiwan in this technology in the first place. | For TSMC, as a foundry, their value is maximized by their ability | to fabricate devices that semiconductor design companies cannot | fabricate themselves. | | Intel and Toshiba apparently don't see cutting edge device scale | as a differentiator and so far haven't invested (enough) in | matching TSMC in that arena. | | There is very little chance, IMHO, that establishing and funding | an independent organization to pursue 2nm will yield the desired | results. Providing funding _tranched on a results basis_ to | existing firms stands a much better chance, provided that they | are permitted to pursue 2 nm fabrication without sharing what | they 've learned, so they gain the benefit of the effort. If that | were the approach, I don't see why the US and Japan need to | collaborate at all. | | Seems more like narrative-supporting publicity than anything | else. Ugh. | Melatonic wrote: | If Intel and others could even get 7nm quality chips working | that would likely be good enough for the foreseeable future. | | I really want to see a proper head to head of ARM vs x86 with | chips at the same fabrication scale - right now part of the | reason ARM (and apples new CPU's) are leagues ahead is also | just that they are on a different manufacturing process. A | modern AMD processor on identical scales might actually be | (somewhat) close to the power efficiency of ARM. I'm sure it | would still lose but it would be interesting. | mytailorisrich wrote: | TSMC is strategic for Taiwan. This is a big part of what makes | them 'useful' and worth protecting. | | On the other hand the US (and Japan, and others) seem to have | decided that it is time to hedge their bets. | | A lot of the action in semiconductors right now is | geostrategic. | ideamotor wrote: | How much their being worth protecting is causally protecting | them? I suspect we have the same concern - that Taiwan is | more likely to be subsumed if their products can be sourced | elsewhere - but I don't know if this is valid. | Rapzid wrote: | Lots of hedging all around. For instance TSMC building out | advanced fabs in USA and Europe is good for everyone. | mrandish wrote: | > Seems more like narrative-supporting publicity than anything | else. | | Agreed. 2nm-scale manufacturing is contingent on the | capabilities available from a complex, interdependent ecosystem | of suppliers starting with ASML but continuing to dozens of | upstream and downstream sources of essential enabling tech from | optics to light sources to resists, etc. Trying to push this | from a top-down, government-driven "coordinating" agency will | likely fail to accomplish anything meaningful toward the stated | goal. | | The relevant ecosystem players are already closely | collaborating, coordinating or competing. There's no obvious | lack of motivation, common ground or communication. And this | government effort doesn't have nearly enough money to entirely | self-fund things that are both A) likely to make a meaningful | difference, and B) aren't already being worked on . Thus, | they'll have lots of meetings, then make some bets they can | afford funding lower-odds things which _aren 't_ likely to pan | out (or they'd be the higher-odds things already being bet on | by the ecosystem). | R0b0t1 wrote: | Those companies sold American manufacturing overseas and are | now demanding money to bring it back. I like the idea of an | independent organization, though I'm not sure it will succeed. | NonNefarious wrote: | Can't wait for the launch of 0-nm production. | Symmetry wrote: | Names are going to switch to use A soon and by the time we get | to low single digits in that we're certainly going to be | needing to move to a whole new computational substrate than | MOSFETs to advance. | Pakdef wrote: | 1 picometer | running101 wrote: | Finally, I hope this the start of things to come. | ChrisRR wrote: | Physicists: We're pushing the limits of physics in order to | produce ever faster computers | | Devs: I'm going to write this in javascript | deelowe wrote: | Is the talent here/there? | filereaper wrote: | People forget how in the 80s Intel pivoted from making memory | to microprocessors specifically because the Japanese were | eating their lunch. | | https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/28/business/japan-s-big-lead... | lizardactivist wrote: | They're working with the Japanese, so I think there will be | good results. | ParksNet wrote: | Why not just import 10 million Taiwanese into America? | pvarangot wrote: | Where would they live? isn't any place with remotely similar | climate and geography to what you see in Taiwan is already | overpopulated in the US? | inciampati wrote: | Where in the US, outside of less than a handful of large | urban centers, is overpopulated? | | It's not a very densely populated country, with density of | 33.6/km2. | | Compare that to Taiwan at 650/km2. | | New York City is 778.2/km2. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | Lol. They are not plants or animals that need a particular | habitat... | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | And the last one should flip the self-destruct switch on the | TSMC plant. | rustybelt wrote: | Totally agree. Taiwanese immigration should be made as easy | as possible. Create special tax benefits for people with | semiconductor experience to come over and help relaunch the | industry in the US. Tax breaks, citizenship, family benefits | should all be on the table. I really can't think of a | downside. | yongjik wrote: | Consider it from Taiwan's point of view. Through hard work | and a bit of luck they created a world-class golden goose | industry that literally outcompetes everyone else. And then | their biggest ally (or the country they thought were their | biggest ally) decides to hire the talents away and gut | their industry, because it's "too important to be in | Taiwan." | unityByFreedom wrote: | Just do it based on merit. Doing it based on country makes | no sense. | wil421 wrote: | You joke but that could become a reality. China is looking at | Ukraine currently and saw how Hong Kong was easily forgotten | about in the media. | bigcat12345678 wrote: | That would be great, suddenly everyone is happy: | | China got the island because no one lives there | | US got talents | | Taiwan can have freedom | AnonMO wrote: | https://newsroom.ibm.com/2021-05-06-IBM-Unveils-Worlds-First... | | Tech is there not scale. | deelowe wrote: | Having worked with IBM in the past, I can't fully trust their | press releases... | 2bitencryption wrote: | planning/development for progressively lower N-nm chips seems to | happen extremely far in advance - here we are talking about 2-nm | when 3-nm is still around the corner. | | My question is, does the development of 2-nm happen totally | independently of 3-nm? Are they happening concurrently, and 3-nm | just got a head start? | | Do the advances made during development of 3-nm factor in to the | design of 2-nm? | | Or is each "N-nm" a somewhat clean slate that brings an entirely | new process? | | Does each fab invent its own process for N-nm? Or does the "N-nm | process" for TSMC look the same as another fabs? | | (replies need not say "ackshually, 2-nm is not really 2-nm". we | all know this. 90% of the comments so far are about this haha) | jbverschoor wrote: | The whole world is running on ASMI/ASML machines and tech.. Not | TSMC's | [deleted] | Jabbles wrote: | Standard reminder: | | The term "2 nanometer" or alternatively "20 angstrom" (a term | used by Intel) has no relation to any actual physical feature | (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the | transistors. It is a commercial or marketing term used by the | semiconductor chip fabrication industry to refer to a new, | improved generation of silicon semiconductor chips in terms of | increased transistor density (i.e. a higher degree of | miniaturization), increased speed and reduced power consumption. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_nm_process | peter_retief wrote: | That seems very disingenuous and disappointing! | nabla9 wrote: | Those names are relevant in planar processes (32 nm was last | planar prosess for Intel). With FinFets, Gate-All-Around, | ribbon fet etc. that makes no sense. | | The correct figure of merit is transistor density MTr/mm2 | (millions of transistors per squared millimeter). In reality | transistor count is not actually transistor count. | | Transistor count = 0.6 x NAND2/area + 0.4x[Scan Flip | Flops]/area | bpodgursky wrote: | That's disappointing | | I always liked to believe that when two fourth-generation | fighters fell in love, they produced an F-35. | umvi wrote: | I hate that that's legal. | | Imagine if the food industry could get away with this in their | marketing: | | "10g Fiber Bars" (fiber bars actually contain only 1g of fiber, | "10g fiber" just refers to the fact that it's the 10th | generation of fiber bar they've created) | whiteboardr wrote: | Far less annoying and above all far less dangerous than | allowing a car company to call their half-baked solution | "Auto Pilot". | [deleted] | skybrian wrote: | I don't think any consumer products get advertised this way? | "Now with 2-nm technology inside" is not something anyone | cares about. It's not a meaningful benchmark for a chip. | | The companies that contract with chip foundries probably know | what they're getting. It makes reading industry news a bit | more confusing, but for most of us, we're reading it for | entertainment, not any practical purpose. | bluedino wrote: | > "10g Fiber Bars" (fiber bars actually contain only 1g of | fiber | | The supplement industry is good at this. You might see a | protein bar with 30g of protein, and find out it's just amino | spiking[1] | | People in the fitness industry were sending products into | labs to have them analyzed and then exposing the companies on | YouTube. | | [1]:The act of using low grade amino acids (usually L-Taurine | and/or L-Glycine) to bump up the overall protein content | kvirani wrote: | Interesting about exposure via YT. Any links to share | there? | bluedino wrote: | https://youtu.be/ntSyz018rxw | Judson wrote: | Similarly as a kid, I was surprised to learn "One-hour Photo" | was a brand and didn't necessarily mean your photos would be | ready in one hour... | jjoonathan wrote: | Oh yeah? But _my_ fiber bars are _Asbestos Free_! (thanks | XKCD, I hate whoever figured this out too) | mortenjorck wrote: | Like household products marketed as "not tested on animals" | when all the compounds in the product were already tested | on animals a century ago and the overhead for using any | novel compounds would mean a vastly higher price (and | probably animal testing). | option wrote: | you might be interested why sugar contents is never mentioned | as % of daily norm on food packaging in US | Symmetry wrote: | It's less that they're marketing deceptively than that the | measure they were using stopped making sense. If the ITRS | back in the day had known we'd stop using planar transistors | they could have named their nodes for the transistor density | they achieved but they didn't and so we're stuck with a | naming convention that no longer refers to a real physical | quantity but we are still getting the density improvements | per node that we traditionally have. | zaptrem wrote: | Why don't we just switch to that now? | Symmetry wrote: | Decades of tradition. And it's not clear exactly what | they would switch to, in general transistors double every | node but different processes tend to have different | design rules so different processes might give you | different densities on different designs making the exact | reference design a fraught question. | audunw wrote: | Why do you care what the minimum gate length is of a process? | Do you design standard cell libraries? Transistor density is | the only thing you actually care about, and they've continued | decreasing the numbers to roughly match what you'd expect | from the "nm" number with old planar transistors. | | The comparison to a "10g fiber bar" doesn't work, because in | the case of semiconductors the "10g fiber bar" is 10 times | better than a "1g fiber bar" | | TSMC has sometimes started to use eg. N7 instead of 7nm.. but | it really doesn't matter. | umvi wrote: | I _don 't_ necessarily care what the minimum gate length | is. But I don't like misleading marketing terms that | ostensibly give you information about the product, but in | reality don't give you any information at all. | | If marketing wants to use some metric to convey how good | the product is, that's fine, but if the only information | being conveyed is the product generation number, they | should not be able to masquerade that generation number as | a metric. Otherwise it misleads consumers into thinking, | i.e. "2nm chips should be able to contain twice as many | transistors as 4nm chips!" when that is false. | adrian_b wrote: | Actually "2 nm" chips are supposed to have 4 times more | transistors than "4 nm" chips, because the area scales | like the square of the length. | | Because each process generation was supposed to double | the transistor density, the names of the processes have | been given to correspond approximately with a geometric | progression having the ratio sqrt(2): 500 nm, 350 nm, 250 | nm, 180 nm, 130 nm, 90 nm, 65 nm, 45 nm, 32 nm, 22 nm, | ... , but then the need to round to integer numbers | combined with the desire to give distinct names to some | process variants that have only small changes in the | transistor density (e.g. "6 nm" vs. "7 nm") have lead to | deviations from the original progression. | | While the transistor density has increased with each | process generation, most recent generations have been | content with a less than double density, e.g. with a | density 1.8 times greater than in the previous | generation. | throw827474737 wrote: | If it doesn't matter why cant they just switch to a density | number that translates better than a lookup table and | doesn't refer to a measure it has no relationship with | anymore? | jjk166 wrote: | Would you pay more money for the same product if they | switched the nomenclature? | throw827474737 wrote: | No, but why? Anyway I'd be happier if we stop abusing a | measure for nomenclature.. | phpisthebest wrote: | Because words have meaning, and when a measure /indicator | of performance ceases to be a good one we do not simply | change the definition of the words we used to us, instead | we come up with something new | | i.e when Ghz stopped being a useful metric (or sole metric) | for CPU we switched to other measurements, we did not | redefine what Ghz represented. | einr wrote: | _i.e when Ghz stopped being a useful metric (or sole | metric) for CPU we switched to other measurements, we did | not redefine what Ghz represented._ | | They really did try to muddy the waters back when CPU | clock was the only commonplace metric of CPU speed the | general consumer would know about though -- as a couple | examples, there was the AMD K5 PR200 which was a 133 MHz | part but supposedly (according to the AMD marketing team, | at least) competitive with a Pentium 200 MHz -- or the | AMD Athlon XP 1700+, which does not run at 1.7 GHz as you | might think but only about 1.4. | | They did stop short of outright calling it GHz, you're | right, but clearly the intent was for the consumer to | think that a Pentium 4 1700 MHz and an AMD Athlon XP | 1700+ were comparable. | smiley1437 wrote: | Looking forward to negative nanometer processes in the future | fossuser wrote: | Yeah I'm also wondering what's going to happen at that point. | umvi wrote: | Most likely they'll just switch to picometers, then | femtometers, etc, each one yielding 10 generations or so | not2b wrote: | In a silicon crystal, the minimum distance between atoms | is 0.235nm. So, no. | jbverschoor wrote: | In marketing, anything is possible | fossuser wrote: | Yeah we've already entered marketing land when it comes | to this years ago. | mqus wrote: | I think the most realistic guess would probably be a | switch to some different nomenclature like G1, G2, G3 etc | for generations or literally anything else like product | lines (see what happened to nvidias/amds graphics card | numbering, etc) | joemi wrote: | Is there a meaningful metric that changes between generations, | that could alternatively be used, perhaps by consumers in spite | of marketing's desires? | nabla9 wrote: | Yes. | | The correct figure of merit is transistor density MTr/mm2 | (millions of transistors per squared millimeter). In reality | transistor count is not actually transistor count. | | Transistor count/area = 0.6 x NAND2/area + 0.4x[Scan Flip | Flops]/area | ge96 wrote: | Weren't "3D chips" a thing? Did that take off/used anywhere. | Sounded like a big deal along with the idea of smaller = | better. | tonmoy wrote: | If you are referring to 3D devices like FinFET then they are | absolutely a thing and is being used pretty widely. If you | are referring to stacking devices in 3D space then the power | density becomes too much and it becomes impractical | audunw wrote: | Transistors are more "3D" now, that's why a 10nm process | gives you something like the same density as what a 2D planar | transistor with 10nm minimum gate length would. See "FinFET" | or "GAA" transistors | | If you're talking about stacking entire chips, yes that's | also used lots of places. | | The challenge there is getting rid of the heat from those | chips. If you stack lots of chips it gets really hard to get | heat out of the ones in the middle. | dragonelite wrote: | You're still limited to thermal and cooling capacity if im | not mistaken. | iasay wrote: | Yes it's used in FLASH now. Look up 3D NAND. | | It's mostly hopeless for compute though because it's | difficult getting rid of the heat. | mook wrote: | There's "3D V-cache" now too (cache on top of compute, or | something along those lines). | standardUser wrote: | The fact that is is shorthand for "increased speed and reduced | power consumption" seems to make it a perfect metric for | comparing chips, especially for those of us who have zero | interest in learning more than one metric to compare chips | (almost everyone). | anonymoose42 wrote: | nsxwolf wrote: | So how many nanometers is the smallest physical feature now? | adrian_b wrote: | The dimensions that matter are the pitches of the transistors | (i.e. of their gates) and of the first layer of metal | interconnections, because these are the dimensions which | determine the size of a logical gate or of a memory cell. | | For state-of-the-art CMOS processes, these pitches are in the | range 30 nm ... 50 nm. | | See for example the table "Comparing Intel 4 to Intel 7", at: | | https://www.anandtech.com/show/17448/intel-4-process-node- | in... | wetpaws wrote: | Varies from fab to fab. | mrep wrote: | More like varies from marketing department to marketing | department. | samatman wrote: | Yeah, it's annoying, but you can see how it happened: the | nomenclature was accurate from 10um to 32nm, and became | marketing rather than measurement slowly, not all at once. | | The choices are rename everything in the past according to a | new objective standard (impractical), make a clean break and | use a new objective standard (but what?), or just let 'nm' | become some rough and increasingly useless way of indicating | die density, where lower is better. So that's what happened. | unethical_ban wrote: | Why is it impractical? I know nothing about CPU architecture. | | Clearly we aren't measuring performance with x-nm | terminology, but the manufacturing process. Can we not use | transistor density per mm^2, or if 3-dimensional, by mm^3? | not2b wrote: | Up until about 2003 or so, scaling worked near-perfectly, so | geometries were essentially the same from generation to | generation. This meant that one number, describing minimum | feature size, told you what you needed to know. Eventually | leakage current became a major issue, so fabs had to do major | redesign and change the shapes of the transistors, and | different foundries did this differently so that minimum | feature length is no longer directly comparable. | | You can still compare density: how many transistors or gates | in a given area. | scrlk wrote: | > You can still compare density: how many transistors or | gates in a given area. | | I would say that comparing density comes with its own | caveats. E.g. SRAM is denser than logic, so a chip with a | lot of cache could skew a density metric. I guess for a | true "apples to apples comparison" of processes you'd want | to implement the same design on separate nodes with a | mixture of SRAM & logic. | | Are there any reference designs used for this? | nwiswell wrote: | Just so everyone is aware, terms like "2 nm" are industry jargon | used primarily for marketing and roadmap comparisons of process | nodes. It doesn't really have any physical bearing on the sizes | of the devices involved anymore. | truncate wrote: | I think its quite known now that its industry jargon, but when | did they start doing that as I presume it wasn't always the | case. | nsxwolf wrote: | I still read about claims that Moore's law is ending due to | quantum tunneling because the transistors are getting too | tiny. | _hypx wrote: | With finFETs the transistors are not physically getting | smaller anymore. Instead, by making taller and taller | finFETs, you can squeeze the transistors closer without | actually having smaller transistors. By some definitions, | you can say Moore's Law is already over, or at least no | long operates via the traditional methods. | jrockway wrote: | What is Moore's law up to these days? I feel like that, as | a user, nothing got faster for about a decade between 2010 | and 2020 (not quite right, more like 2012-2018). Instead | everyone was like "oh it requires less air conditioners in | a data center!" or "uh we're out of ideas, have 32 cores". | OK, but I need more FPS from my game. I have a great air | conditioner. | | That seems to have changed in the last couple years, | though. AMD and Apple seem to have gotten serious. | | (I know, Moore's law is about transistor count, and I guess | adding more cores technically increases the transistor | count. But as a software engineer, I need my chips to get | 2x faster every 18 months, or I'll have to start using a | profiler or something!) | ahartmetz wrote: | Hey, performance tuning is fun! You should try it. | Symmetry wrote: | It used to be that when you shrank a transitor you would | be able increase clock speeds by default thanks to | something called Dennard scaling. That stopped happening | in the mid 2000s. Price per transistor, transistor | density, and energy efficiency are all continuing to get | better exponentially but new semiconductor plants are | also going up in price exponentially so more and more | companies are dropping out of the race. You can look at | the Wikichip page to see how much attrition there's been. | | https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node | [deleted] | amelius wrote: | I suspect it started when engineers stopped making the | important decisions and people with merely a business | background took over. | km3r wrote: | I don't think it was any one time, just a slow drift away | from Moore's law physically while the marketing department | followed it strictly (as well as defined the nodes before the | processes were actually developed, so they were going off | best guess). | audunw wrote: | When they changed from planar transistors to more 3D-like | transistors like FinFET, I believe. I'm pretty sure 55nm and | probably 28nm still has minimum pitch of that size. | | Problem was that people had certain expectation that a "45nm" | process could fit more transistors than "90nm" one. Would be | kind of awkward to name it like "22nm++++" and you have no | idea roughly how much better it was than the old planar | "22nm" process. | Symmetry wrote: | Up until 45nm the name of a process node was twice the length | of a transistor's gate. At that point it stopped being | technologically feasible to reduce the gate length but | companies were able to find other ways, such as fin FETs, to | pack ever more transistors in with each node without having | to reduce the transistor length. | sethjr5rtfgh wrote: | It's "quite known" if you already know it. I didn't. | agildehaus wrote: | I hear this statement quite often, but never paired with what | numbers we should be using. Are there any? Do we know anything | about these fabs that is worthwhile to make a comparison? | skavi wrote: | Like any sufficiently complex thing, it takes a lot of | numbers to create a representative profile. | | One somewhat useful figure you'll see used is MTr/mm^2 or | mega-transistor per square millimeter. That number can change | depending on what exactly those transistors are being used | for (which cell libraries are used). | | IIRC Intel proposed a standard ratio for such measurements a | while back. | | Density doesn't make a process better for everything however. | mjevans wrote: | Useful measurements are particularly difficult when trade- | offs are inherent options. | | For memory: space, speed, power required, longevity | (against time, against temperature / ambient energy). | | Computation usually requires some tiny bits of very | volatile memory (registers, cache, invisible buffers, etc), | but similarly must have tradeoffs for space, speed, power, | and longevity. | | Radiation Hardened / hostile environment design libraries | can also be useful for automotive, heavy industry, | military, and space hardened applications. I'm not sure of | the details but guess they'd frequently use more space, | power, and possibly even active shielding (E.G. additional | layers of conductors and/or capacitors sandwiching the | logic bits to try to protect them and stabilize local | currents). | wdb wrote: | Would ASML be involved in this? | mrtweetyhack wrote: | hrgiger wrote: | This is fascinating considering dna is 2.5 atom between 1-0.5 | nanometer | ricardobeat wrote: | Not quite. A strand of DNA is roughly 2.5nm wide, and it would | take ~47 hydrogen atoms to span that distance. Still | fascinating! | guardiangod wrote: | From my experience, no offense, when you pool together a bunch of | also-ran teams together to catch up to the industry leader, you'd | just get a larger also-ran team. | | I also have reservations on whether the academia can surpass the | speed of commercial R&D teams on semiconductor tech. I will | believe it when I see it. | DubiousPusher wrote: | Also rans? Are you implying that thr U.S. and Japan are | "behind" Taiwan? If so, I don't think that is very accurate. | The machines that allow Taiwanese companies to create computer | circuits come from a Dutch company ASML (with the second most | advanced machines coming from Nikon Japan). | | ASML's machines have over 4,000 parts in their own supply | chains. Many of these are high technology which even ASML does | not know how to produce. Many of them come from the U.S. and | Europe. The EUV process ASML uses in its most advanced machines | was only possible due to investments made by the U.S. | government and U.S. companies. | | What is happening here is not an attempt by the U.S. and | Japanese governments to compete with Taiwan. It's an investment | to ensure the next generation of lithographic technology plays | out much like the current generation. Meaning the U.S. it's | allied governments and many of their respective companies | invest enough to acquire leverage over the technology and thus | are able to locked China and other countries out of it. | | Fabrication is far easier to catch up than bootstrapping. If a | country started today, they could subsidize fabrication and | within eighteen months they could be making strides to deliver | more chips from within. It might literally take a decade or two | for a new company to build ASMLs supply chains and replicate | one of their machines and that would be 10-20 with no | production growth, they would just at that point be getting | started. | AnonMO wrote: | Honestly to me all these comments are wrong and focusing too much | on the 2nm aspect and not the possible r&d outcomes. EUV come to | fruition because of r&d research between the US and other | countries/companies. TSMC might be the largest foundry but a | majority if not all of their tooling is from the west and japan; | from ASML, AMAT, Lam Research and others. Best believe some | acquisitions will happen especially on from the US side and new | tech will be coming out probably some sort of EUV replacement. | artemonster wrote: | I hate everything about this. The automotive morons forced semi's | to shit their pants during pandemic, we have lots of supply chain | issues for the whole production chain (packaging, testing, not | only wafer manufacturing!) and here we push for marketing "2nm", | where pushing the envelope doesnt make any sense in reality. | Scale older processes, make them cheaper, goddamnit! Analog power | transistors give zero shits about your nanometers, we need more | 90nm and 160nm capacity. | jjk166 wrote: | Research into new manufacturing technologies and building out | more capacity in mature technologies do not draw from the same | resource pools. | throw8383833jj wrote: | yeah. Personally, I don't want more microchips in everything. I | just want a cheap fridge, a cheap washing machine, or cheap | whatever, F** the chips. Even in a car, I want the aboslute | minimum amount of chips and other nonsense. | artemonster wrote: | no, here you are wrong, mate. Having mechanical (or any | other) control for your dishwasher or washing machine is a | VERY bad idea. also for your engine timing and sensor | evaluation in your car, also planes, also, basically, | everything. I understand the notion where you wonder "WTF | there is a WiFi in my freackn OVEN?!" and "WHY THE HELL WE | HAVE LCD SCREENS HERE?!", but in general microcontroller is a | FAR superior and __safer__ controlling contraption than | everything else humanity have ever devised. | phpisthebest wrote: | Yes but car companies see Google Revenue and say "Look how | much money there is on Spying on people" and...... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-01 23:01 UTC)