211–217 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they're adding a dimension, the marketing should reflect that. I know they won't go for an anything that makes as much sense as 5nm3, so I vote for "1nm hyper space"
Should population density in cities also be measured in hab/km³ rather than hab/km²? We are used to stacking people vertically in cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always feel like I'm not quite getting quantum stuff no matter how much I read and learn: what does this advancement have to do with quantum computers?
Don't worry about not grokking quantum computing stuff, neither do any of the people who invest in it as well as many people who work on it. 1. The OP has nothing to do with quantum computers. 2. Quantum computing deals in coherent quantum states: associated with N qubits there are 2^N complex amplitudes. You can measure by sampling the square-magnitude of the complex amplitude which turns it into a Probability Distr…
But seeing progress in semiconductor nodes is always a good thing. It has felt quite stagnant these past few years.
What surprised me is that it came from IBM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"The electron wave function will simply just appear wherever it wants (within the electron probability cloud)." I don't know which is more ridiculous, the fact that reality works like this, or, that a species of apes was able to figure this out.
I find it ridiculoua that we believe it is random probability instead of trying to find (and maybe later mitigate) the real sources of this randomness.
It doesn't mean "we believe reality works this way". It means "at extremely small scale, probabilistic models from QM best predict the behavior of electrons".
Looking at this picture: https://filecache.mediaroom.com/mr5mr_ibmnewsroom/201436/IBM... I am just astonished at the quality of the structure. Not only that, but the quality of the "cut" to then be able to take this picture. I was closely involved in EM imaging more than 30 years ago, this is just wonderful to see such pictures now.
I understand the general area of "small imaging and manipulation" is something IBM has been working on for a very long time. This is STM from 1989: https://sciencephotogallery.com/featured/ibm-atom-manipulati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is so weird, right? Like what is IBM now and how does a research lab make sense with the rest of their business? The money-making parts of IBM are: legacy software and hardware (declining), consulting (low margin, low leverage), enterprise software (mostly redhat, not really growing). It's hard to explain how IBM research is accretive to any of that.
Isn't consulting one of the most high-margin areas in general?
Sometimes you might hear private partnerships quote gross margins in the 40s or 50s but that’s implicitly gross of partner labor and comp so it’s not apples to apples.