Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The bigger they are, the longer they take to fa (Score 1) 45

The original IBM did hardware, semiconductors, computers, storage, printers, fundamental research, etc.

Except for printers, IBM still does everything on your list. POWER is one of the few surviving vendor proprietary CPUs in the world today. POWER11 was introduced a week ago, and they're still made in an IBM fab. They make enterprise grade flash storage systems and scalable cluster file systems. They are among the leaders in quantum computing research. They've developed their own inference accelerator hardware to augment their conventional CPUs.

Again. This isn't apparent to people in the commodity hardware and software world, but IBM still sells a complete stack of IBM gear to those that can write the necessary checks. IBM's largest source of revenue isn't either consulting or hardware. It's software licensing. The have a portfolio of enterprise software you've never heard spoken of, and it's a $27e9/year business.

IBM serves a world you don't know or care about. And they'll be cashing those checks long after we're both dead.

Comment Re:The bigger they are, the longer they take to fa (Score 1) 45

You think IBM has a future?

IBM is fine. IBM serves institutional customers. Wealthy customers (cities, states, major corps, federal agents, etc.) pay IBM for services. And no, I'm not taking about mainframes. They have zero profile in the start-up, VC circus, so bloggers don't prattle on about IBM, so you and your ilk are ignorant of what that do and why people pay them. Rest assured, however, IBM a going concern with a very secure future.

Comment Re:Fuel or electrical? (Score 1) 106

If it's bad fuel then other aircraft at the airport would have the same problem.

Incorrect. Jet fuel is stored in a collection of tanks at an airport. One tank can be contaminated with, for instance, water, and this can be pumped into a single truck and loaded into a one aircraft. This has happened before. The fact that no other aircraft suffered bad fuel means nothing.

It could also be a case of debris in fuel, severely restricting fuel flow. The engines run at idle fine, but sometime after power is applied and the debris clogs pickups, the engines will fail. This has also happened to commercial aircraft.

Comment Re:Fuel or electrical? (Score 1) 106

The emergency turbine shouldn't have deployed if it were bad gas

Where are you getting that from? The purpose of a RAT is to sustain power. It will deploy automatically under a variety of conditions, including dual engine failure on takeoff.

All this bit of spin tells us is that the aircraft wasn't grossly misconfigured by the crew. Great.

This is going to be bad fuel. But that won't come out for a long time, because it will put the fault on a state operated airline, from a state operated airport, investigated by that state's authority. If India could plausibly pin this on a Boeing design fault they would be shouting it from the mountain tops, and they've had nearly 3 weeks to analyze the complete data set from both flight data+voice recorders. That fact that what we're getting, instead, is spin stories like this, should tell you everything you need to know.

Comment Re:Erm... (Score -1, Redundant) 163

What am I missing?

Nothing. SpaceX is doing fine. Starship is ambitious. It is also being developed in a manner not suitable to the sensibilities of the Western aerospace commentariat. SpaceX performs many tests, analyzes many failures and refines designs accordingly. This produces great designs at low cost, in less time, and many dramatic RUDs. The Russians did the same. They performed many tests on initially flawed designs and fixed the flaws they discovered until they had confidence in their designs.

The traditional Western, big aerospace way, as we can clearly see with SLS is to take a decade or more and consumes oceans of money analyzing a paper design beyond any conceivable failure mode. This works, but it's extremely expensive, glacially slow, and suitable only for national superpower scale budgets funding cost plus contractors with little to no thought given to a feasible long term business model. That's why all their marquee designs are now historic, and the next one is still nascent, wildly over budget, years late and likely redundant.

So don't worry too much about the deep thoughts of our professional spectators. You can be absolutely certain that Musk doesn't.

Comment Re:Existing equiment? (Score 1) 62

What about existing equipment?

You'd think Broadcom et al. would pitch a fit given the billions they've spent developing Wi-Fi standards that include 6 GHz, developing 6 GHz devices, etc. It's not just owners of existing equipment. It's an entire industry that has been investing in 6 GHz Wi-Fi for years now.

Comment Re:Meaningless metric (Score 1) 70

I'm saying make sure we get it right

I am saying I have no patience for the drearily predictable "quality" and "safety" FUD. There are severe problems in healthcare. Bad enough to risk neglecting our worship of medical authority. Bad enough to risk suffering possible unknown failures as an alternative to our chronic known failures.

Comment Re:Meaningless metric (Score 4, Insightful) 70

Quality

This presumes we have quality. Do you believe that, without doubt? I don't. I have a lifetime of anecdotal evidence of failures by doctors, personally and among family, friends and others. Without (hopefully) inviting a deluge of corroboration, I can assure you the people reading this now can bury us in such stories.

Beyond that, we are in desperate need of lower cost solutions for medicine. You're free to attribute the extreme costs we see however you wish, but finger pointing won't fix it: the powers and interests involved aren't listening. What is needed is a disruption, and this looks like a real possibility. I, at least, don't immediately dismiss it with AMA FUD.

Comment Re:Example (Score 1) 248

You can pretend you're not stealing someone else's code.

Show evidence of code theft, where these models are built with proprietary code that hasn't been liberally licensed and freely offered. Otherwise you're engaging in FUD.

How is this is better than doing a search yourself?

A.) Zero ads: wading through prevailing search engines is a total shit show. I'm paying for LLM service, and I don't have to suffer that crap.
B.) Most examples are written by learners that are, themselves, ignorant of the sort of subtleties I mentioned. LLMs do better than that: they evaluate code and point out stuff that would otherwise be overlooked.

Comment Example (Score 4, Interesting) 248

Yesterday, I wanted an example of a PIO program to generate high resolution, arbitrary waveform (variable frequency) PWM output using DMA on an RP2350 MCU. Gemini 2.5 Pro generated a correct, working, basic example. I refined it further by changing and adding requirements to deal with end state, corner cases and the deficiencies in the generated code. The final result works perfectly. Guessing here: It took probably perhaps 25% of the time to accomplish this than it would have without "AI." And while PIO appears simple, there is actually a lot of subtlety in the hardware that a new PIO programmer, without an AI, would likely either not know provides useful capabilities or would overlook, yielding less than optimal results and/or actual flaws. By using Gemini, I believe the code is on par with what a PIO expert would have produced.

So yes, it is actually helpful. And no, I don't believe this makes me or others like me obsolete: non-technical people cannot achieve the same results in reasonable amounts of time because they don't even know what to ask for, much less how to evaluate the answers.

Comment Re:How to Win Friends and Influence People (Score 5, Insightful) 117

All Overstreet needs to do is...

All Overstreet needs to is continue development as he wishes. There is no fundamental reason bcachefs must be included in Linus's mainline kernel. The kernel has loadable modules. This work can simply be a loadable module. There are tools to make this next to transparent to an end user, up to and including as a root file system. ZFS On Linux has existed this way for 15 years now. There are entire commercial empires built around it, and it has never, at any point, been in the Linux mainline code base.

Whatever benefit bcachefs previously enjoyed by being in the mainline kernel has been entirely squandered by the recurring drama. Best to separate the parties and forego future squabbles. Another wise and brave decision from Torvalds.

Slashdot Top Deals

Interchangeable parts won't.

Working...