Sure. Some software has to exist to make use of this system, for example something has to create the tag in the first place, and mall ic is a part of that, but the large address space is what makes them possible.
It’s a nice tutorial on base plus index addressing but from the title I expected a tutorial on pointer tags as x86_64 is what makes tags even possible, i.e. we have a 64b address space but not 2^64 memory locations.
A digital computer is definitely a FSM. In fact, creating the state diagram of a simple calculator, and mapping that to digital logic by hand, and then building it on a breadboard used to be a staple of most introductory computer architecture courses. Now they just simulate everything. :)
I waffle on this one too. Institutions that do HFT have a huge capital cost and pay large fees before they even make their first trade. They also employ programmers, traders, etc. Basically, these taxes are going to need to sum to something really big to dissuade them. Too small, they ignore it. Medium, the market will just consolidate. Large, you'll stop HFT, but at what consequence? The probability of unintended consequences is high.
This is when I decide I don't really understand the market as well as I think, and I should stop solving the world's problems, and go back to designing circuits.
Personally I waffle on this myself. My instinct tells me it’s bad but then I try to decide what trading cadence I would limit it to. Assume there is a CEO who wants to do something nefarious to manipulate the stock price. If they make a decision how fast can a company actually act on it? Would or could they make the company act on 1 hour boundaries? Even if we limited trades to once per week is that the long term we want a CEO to consider? At what time frame does a stock stop being a stock and convert to something else? Then I decide even by minute trading is not really something that management can even consider, even if they want to, so there is really no point to artificial limits imposed by law and take a more laissez faire attitude.
> Its a ton of random math that (most) of which you don't use again since you use modeling software.
You absolutely need that math because you need to know when the modeling software is giving the wrong answer. You’re supposed to do quick and dirty calc by hand (ok fine I use mathematica) in a simplified system, then you refine with numerical software and compare the two. It’s shockingly easy to get the wrong answer with numerical CAD.
First off, I admit I didn’t do my homework so I have no idea what I’m talking about, but couldn’t the Turing machine make a Turing machine interpreter and therefore be a self interpreter? It is universal, no?
I used xcircuit, magic and irsim in university to make plenty of ASICs at MOSIS. Many universities still do. One can even get the NCSU PDKs for MOSIS for free. Totally compatible with 0.18u
http://opencircuitdesign.com/magic/
The second example is a medical IoT telemetry device. If the parent’s project had antenna in package I totally believe $20M for the project, especially as it includes rf validation, the bringing it to market part. $1M per engineer is a lot, especially for typical VLSI cad stuff, but possible for some “design” tools. I’ve used some specialized field solvers that cost $500k per engineer. Not sure that AiP in 2017 would’ve required that, but maybe.
> I don't see how that big investment for relative low volume production would make sense for consumer products.
If the consumer product is a toy then sure. If it’s a medical device then it could make sense. It’s all about margin.
> After GlobalFoundries quit the race, US defense contractors have only Intel as supplier for many components.
Maybe. If you want millions of chips a quarter then sure. But if you want 1000s a quarter then there are many options, depending on the node I guess. I’m not going to Google a complete list but one obvious example is Texas Instruments.
On the other hand, everyone reviews the figures in detail. Therefore I’ve always used the text as a way to document the decisions behind the figure, mostly for myself, and to clarify any ambiguity in the figure itself.