I am an Engineer (electronics, whith emphasis in Compouter arch, telecoms and Datacomm), but I also am an MBA.

Last time I checked, I did not get a lobotomy while doing the MBA.

Six years AFTER the MBA, I mastered Cloud Computing infrastructure (Servers + Storage + Openstack). My role was to tech that to TTelecom Operators in LatAm.

Think what you may about that. Adjust your analysis accordingly.

Access to new APIs with new/better/more secure/more performant functionality is a decent reason to leave old OSes behind.

If an App had to support WfW3.11 Win32, Win95, win98, WinMe, WinNT3.x, WinNT4, Win2000, WinXP, WinVista, Win7, Win8.x Win10 and Win11, that would really be a development/testing and security nightmare... Where do we draw the line? Your favourite OS perhaps?

After all, a person perfectly happy with WinXP or WinVista has the same right as you to complain that "several of the applications I use decided that they will no longer support anything older than Win10 for no clear reason." (and actually did, when App support for WinXP was retired).

Where does an App developer draw the line? May I sugest "I stop supporting an App on a certain OS version as soon as the OS Manufacturer stop supporting said OS version"? Seems reasonable to me, and most App vendors do it.

Or perhaps "I keep supporting my App on an OS version, even if the manufacturer stopped supporting it, as long as all the core components of my App still support said OS (See steam in Windows 7 vis a vis chromium)"?

Or perhaps "I'll keep supporting my App on an OS version the manufacturer does not support as long as the work on the app version is already done, for the life of the app version, and drop it as soon as the next version of the App lands (see Firefox LTS 115 on Win7)"

As for the OS Maker, most of them (ajem, apple, ajem) are very clear from day one about support lifecycles and guidelines, having a definite official policy written on their public website . lifetimes vary from 7 to 10 years, sometimes (ubuntu, IBM osZ, SunOS) slightly more.

And herein lies the curx of the matter, I know plenty of very smart lawyers, architects, civil engineers, and Mds that are absolutely clueless about being non-stupid online. For their personal machines, as well as for the machines their employers provide, this reprive is a godsend.

Sometimes, a high value target is a lowly General services employee, whose compromised Win10 Laptop serves as a beachhead to enter the internal network. See Digitel/Venezuela

The bible had something about a big solid ostentuous house built on sand. Also something about a gold idol built on an altar of clay... please check.

Again, if those super-smart (but not computer saavy) Lawyers, Civil Engineers, architects and Mds do not have a super powerfull IT dept behind them (either because they work by themselves, or because their IT dept is not super-solid) is better/easier/more cost effective to just pay for the OS security patches (or migrate for free to the next version of your favourite OS if possible), instead of doing mitigations + Building your house on a sand foundation, or buying a new machine if the current one is not capable to run the next version.

Or if a person is capable of doing the mitigations, but does not want to deal with the burden, perhaps for them, they value the time not spent doing mitigations and hardening for an OS with no patches, much, much more tha n the 61 $ the first year, or the 122 the second or even the 244 the third to keep the OS secure and the apps happy too

Is called layered security, you need all the layers to be as secure as possible.

English is not my first language. Yo hablo español. Un ingeniero, una ingeniera. I mistranslated. Sorry if I hut your feelings.

Not really, Intel, GloFo, Micron and others have been developing fabs USoA side for decades. Thing is, GloFo dropped out of the race for the cutting edge, and intel is still on the race but stumbled, so the two most advanced foundry companies are in SK and TW...

Also, packaging (even the most advanced ones) being a more labour intensive thing than Semicon manufacturing, tends to be done in low cost countries.

Word to the wise for the USoA policymakers: they should stimulate Mexico (and perhaps Brazil) to do semicon packaging, lest most of the packaging in the world (not all, but most) keeps being done in SE asia

And yes, I am aware that SKHynix just anopunced a Packaging facility in Indiana...

I did not post here out of respect, until I confirmed that casualties were low, and this was not an humanitarian disaster. One I confirmed that was the case, I jopined in the analysis of the implications...

Where the human tragedy be greater, I'd have waited a longer period, out of respect and taste, before joining the analysis...

Similar things happened (to a lesser extent) when the latest palestinian-israeli outbreak (what will happen with intel and Tower semiconductor facilities in haifa?) also with taiwan floods and HDDs and JApanese earthquake of 2011, to name just a few...

JM2C, YMMV

You are 100% correct. PRoblem is that doing geographical redundancy with datacenters is oreder of magnitude more difficult to do with chip manufacturing than it is to do with datacenters.

The knowledge needed to do chips with good yields is highly specialized, and highly specific to each manufacturer, so, due to lack of specialized workers is easier for Foundries to expand existing fabs, or keep fabs in the same country, than it is for them to put fabs everyhere.

As for loss of life, last time I checked it was only 1 death (probably more by now), so, thanks the lord in the hights tha the mortality was low.

As you aslo said, the equipment is very sensitive, but I think you are underestimatingt the disruption. You see, the engineers at TSMC, UMC and Nanya (to name three), will have to completely purge all production lines, then recalibrate the equipment, and then re-start production, causing a disruption (a bubble + delays) in the supply chain...

But guess what?

If you are an engineer (or an Egineress) charged with recalibrating the epuipment and re-starting production, and you were hurt because a piece of concrete fell on your back during the eartquake, you will be out of commision for a long while, and even if you are 100% Ok, if your parents, offspring or SO were hurt, you will be taking care of them, and also unavailable for a while... or, if they "force" youto be there, your mind will not be 100% there...

So, fabs face a shortage of workers in the aftermath of the quacke, precisely when they need them more....

Actually, is the other way around. China wants taiwan back as a National pride issue, not for economic reasons. Is too long to explain, and dates back to the Opium wars (you can google around if interested). Actually, it almost happened in the mid of the XX century, when there was no semiconductor industry to speak of.

Actually, if china invaded, the taiwan semiconductor industry would be obliterated, either by planed destruction by the taiwanese govt, or as non-intended collateral damage of the invasion per-se, or because a samiconductor outfit without the personnel is not worth it, as that is now adays so specialized and different from one another that restarting it without the people, even if it went 100% unharmed, will be a long process, and once re-started, it will be at much lower nodes and yields.

So, one of the (many) reasons china does not invade is that a big chunk of the rest of the world do not want Taiwan's semiconductor industry disrupted, and therefor, have implemnented disuasive meassures, not because the chinese govt wants to capture Taiwans semiconductor economic benefit (because it will evaporate in case of a invation for a loooong time).

While everyone and their dog is fixated on the "most advanced chips", less advanced chips are important too.

UMC, and Nanya (to name 2) are Fabs that operate in Taiwan too, and guess what, many of the chips they manufacture end up in your car, your home theatre or your microwave. And even if your chips were "Fabbed" elsewhere, chances are they will be packaged by ASE group, also located in Taiwan...

Tell Toyota that a $30.000.oo corolla is stuck in the assembly line because a $30 non-advanced chip for the ECU is missing, either because a Fab in Taiwan could no manufacture it, or because the silicon is ready, but it could not be packaged.

Or tell tesla that a $60,000.oo car is also stuck on the assembly line for lack of an ABS/ECU non-advanced chip

Or tell a manufacturer of an appliance (say, a non-smart fridge, that still needs semiconductors) that a U$D appliance is stuck because they could not get a $10,oo non-advanced semiconductors in time.

And contrary to popular beliefs, many of those fab and/or packaging services, and sometimes, even the finakl chips themselves are not easily fungible.

Is not like a manufacturer of a non-advanced ECU chip can shift the VHDL design from the UCM or Nanya rules to the Glofo or ON Semicondutor at the drop of a hat. And is not like a chip designed from the get-go to be packaged by ASE group using ASE's propiertary test/packaging process can be packaged elsewhere by the drop of a hat...

So, do not fixate fetishistically on the bleeding edge, the non-bleeding edge will be equally damaging.

Ms'. Fosen latest stance of the matter is that she does not want the image used anymore. And the copyright holders (which is Playboy magazine, not Ms. Fosen) are siding with her.

So, the "morally correct" * thing to do is to stop using the images. Lest you as a researcher (and you employer) are ready to get a bunch of cease and desist letters and copyright infringement lawsuits. I do not know if the IEEE (and Nature before them) is doing it to be "morally correct" * or to cover their asses, but well done anyway!

May I sugest using relevant non-provocative pictures (high contrast, fluff, varied detail, colour, etc ) of REAL sicentists? Claude Shannon, Harry Niquist, Alan Turing, Hedi Lamarr (nee Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler), grace hopper, steve sansonn, etc... I think the archives should have some relevant pictures, even negatives, to scan

Full disclosure: I am a memebrr of IEEE since 1994

* Not moraly correct in terms of "do not use adult magazine pictures for research papaers in unrelated fields" but rather morally correct in terms of "respect the wishes of the picture subject and the copyright holder"

To be the copilot key + a new keycap and extraction tool and: td ta! cheap upgrade to full AI PC!

AMD has been bussy changing their "CUDA Killer" architecture (and the Accelerated Graphics one too) every few years. Close To Metal, Mantle, Stream, GPUOpen, HIP, ROCm... Does any one of those ring a bell?

AMD has been bussy having knee-jerk reactions, developing new CUDA-Killer software frameworks, without reason or Ryme, and then discarding them, without stoping to take a long hard look and reflecting at what need to be done, and then doing it.

Hope intel has better luck with their unifyinf FOSS effort, and AMD hops into intel FOSS bandwagon.

Just for example, Think about the shitshow that is OpenCL v3. OpenCL was SUPER-Slow but at least overall rationaly developed until OpenCL 2.2.. and then it went apeshit with OpenCL 3.0, there, 1.2 is mandatory (a regression), and ABSOLUTELY EVERTHING beyond that is optional.

Who could develop interoperable SW on top of OpenCl like that?!

Similar crap with other efforts like SYCL...

So, history does not repeat itself, but it surely rymes, this effort wil fumble too

And the worst part is that I wish there was a viable alternative to CUDA...