221–230 of 449 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do we all need 128GB now? I was happy with 32. Close a few Chrome tabs, and save some DDR5 for the rest of us. :-)
I like to tell people I have 128GB. It's pretty rare to meet someone like me that isn't swapping all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't be so sure. I've seen analyses making the case that this new phase is unlike previous cycles and DRAM makers will be far less willing to invest significantly in new capacity, especially into consumer DRAM over more enterprise DRAM or HBM (and even there there's still a significant risk of the AI bubble popping). The shortage could last a decade. Right now DRAM makers are benefiting to an extreme degree sin…
A LOT of businesses learned during Covid they can make more money by permanently reducing output and jacking prices. We might be witnessing the end times of economies of scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a weird form of centralized planning. Except there's no election to get on to the central committee, it's like in the Soviet era where you had to run in the right circles and have sway in them. There's too much group-think in the executive class. Too much forced adoption of AI, too much bandwagon hopping. The return-to-office fad is similar, a bunch of executives following the mandates of their board, all becau…
This is why I think taxes on the very wealthy should be so high that billionaires can't happen. The usual reasons are either about raising revenue or are vague ideas about inequality. It doesn't raise enough revenue to matter, and inequality is a fairly weak justification by itself. But the power concentration is a strong reason. That level of wealth is incompatible with democracy. Money is power, and when someone ac…
I'm so mad about this, I need DDR5 for a new mini-PC I bought and prices have literally gone up by 2.5x.. 128GB used to be 400$ in June, and now it's over $1,000 for the same 2x64GB set.. I have no idea if/when prices will come back down but it sucks.
Usually after the companies are fined for price-fixing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> who bears the costs of this suit? The goal is to not have it happen, because the company is going to see that they're only slightly below the threshold and voluntarily split themselves into smaller pieces and buy themselves a safety margin because if they don't everybody knows the lawsuits are going to vaporize them once they exceed the threshold. > And who determines what makes for a good market share size to be t…
> so they can't capture the government department so why not solve this issue directly? Transparency, auditing and public awareness etc are needed to prevent regulatory capture. Public apathy are the reason why it is currently "easy" to do capture regulators. The fact is even if a law suit is possible from anyone in the public, no one is going to pay to do a law suit (which has costs), when the result doesn't net the…
It's mostly easy because the people doing it are good at lying. When they create a rule it isn't called the "mandate this company's product rule" or the "increase fixed costs to lock out smaller competitors rule", it's sold as a safety measure or consumer protection or some other pretext, even though the effect is to raise costs to the benefit of the companies getting the money or exclude competitors to the benefit of the incumbents.
Or they simply don't prosecute antitrust violations, and then there is nothing to audit because there is nothing happening, meanwhile people are kept distracted with other things.
> The fact is even if a law suit is possible from anyone in the public, no one is going to pay to do a law suit (which has costs), when the result doesn't net them more profit.
It does net them more profit. The premise is that having more than the threshold amount of market share is a strict liability antitrust violation, which allows any customer or prospective customer (i.e. anyone) to sue them for it. The person who files the lawsuit would get the money, the same as someone who sues a company for pollution or fraud.
The point of letting people sue you for polluting or fraud or, in this case, market consolidation, isn't to make plaintiffs rich, it's to deter the thing you don't want companies to do. The goal isn't to have a lot of lawsuits, the goal is to have companies not want the market to consolidate and actively prevent it because if it happens they'll get sued.
> So solving public apathy first, and foremost, is the solution.
Apathy is cyclical. People don't care until the problem gets bad enough, then they care enough to demand change and make it go away for a while, then they stop caring until it gets bad enough again.
But you don't want people to have to die or get severely abused before the problem gets addressed. What you want is to change the structure of the system to prevent it from getting that bad to begin with, by making sure that the power to nip the problem in the bud (i.e. stop market consolidation at 5% or 15% instead of 50% or 90%) is held by someone who will actually exercise it, which can be accomplished by granting that power to everyone affected, which in this context is each and every member of the public.
I'm so mad about this, I need DDR5 for a new mini-PC I bought and prices have literally gone up by 2.5x.. 128GB used to be 400$ in June, and now it's over $1,000 for the same 2x64GB set.. I have no idea if/when prices will come back down but it sucks.
Damn I bought a whole computer with 128GB RAM & 16-core Ryzen CPU for £325 a few months ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense, it would force vertical de- integration. Chip fabs used to be like book publishers; you don't have to own a printing press to be an author. Carver Mead even described his vision of the industry that way. Nowadays you have to get your cell libraries and a large chunk of your toolchain from the fab. Of course it's laundered through cadence+synopsys, but it's still coming from the fab. You have to buy your mas…
> Chip fabs used to be like book publishers; I can still make a book like that in my basement. People do this as a hobby now. You can still build chips like that in your garage. People do this as a hobby now. These things DO NOT SCALE... you cant have 10,000 people running printing presses in their basement to crank out the NYT every day. A modern chip fab has more in common with the printer for the NYT than it does…
> https://www.youtube.com/asianometry probably the best rough and ready education you can get on the industry.
I would take anything from that channel regarding China with a pinch of salt.
I'm so mad about this, I need DDR5 for a new mini-PC I bought and prices have literally gone up by 2.5x.. 128GB used to be 400$ in June, and now it's over $1,000 for the same 2x64GB set.. I have no idea if/when prices will come back down but it sucks.
I just looked at the invoice for my current PC parts that I bought in April 2016: I paid 177 EUR (~203 USD) for 32GB (DDR4-2800). It's kinda sad when you grow up in a period of rapid hardware development and now see 10 years going by with RAM $/GB prices staying roughly the same.
That period of time had some benefits. Programmers learned to squeeze absolutely everything out of that hardware.
Perhaps writing software for today's hardware is again becoming the norm rather than being horribly inefficient and simply waiting for CPU/GPU power to double in 18 months.
I was lucky. I built my am5 7950x Ryzen pc with 2x48gb ddr5 2 years ago. I just bought 4x48gb kit a month ago with an idea to build another home server with the old 2*48gb kit.
Today my old g.skill 2x48gb kit costs Double what I paid for the 4x48gb.
Furthermore I bought two used rtx3090 (for AI) back then. A week ago I bought a third one for the same price... ,(for vram in my server).