I am also baffled by the multiple control points. I can log in to mail in 3 places. Settings have 3 with different uis....it is gross.

Some neat startups to watch for in this space.

Columnar basalt formation has been understood for a long time, I really don't understand what this explained that wasn't already known?

Which is, I think, the successor and quite useful.

You can do lithography small but slow and expensive. But small means you need a stack, which is even more expensive. At small sizes, defectivity/variation are really difficult.

So if you want a paradigmatic shift, you need low cost patterning, and the best way I can see is to use clever chemistry and a much different design style.

All the calendar, task, website stuff ended up dying away, because what we really needed was a good document management system, with optionally some simple signoff loops and notifications.

That was great. Yes, it was just unix like tools with a window. That is the craigslist of os improvements.

It really was the use case, but the simple one. I saw plenty of power users try to do complex and ultimately fragile uses that died away.

In the case of this user, I love the idea of turning an email to an action, but I also need to add that to my action board and assign it, and check people time, at which point the simple action only makes sense for individuals, not teams or orgs. and I need to add a couple missing actions, and summarize. So suddenly the all in one is a marginally useful tool that is also a straightjacket. And then I go back to outlook and jira and excel and trelli or whatever.

Now, the relative shrink is tiny, so capacity adds are just wspm, in effect, and that gives 5%.

Put differently, you cannot invest your way out of the shortage, or into meaningful share....so you take profit.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31724

These are well understood terms in the field. Unfortunately, this illustrates the bounds of ai in subfields like materials: it confuses people.

If you take the square root of that...you pretty much end up with (modulo a linear scale) the existing nodes.

That gets you size. You then need power and speed, which are a bit trickier to compare without a standard/reference device.

I am not so sure tsm was first. Depends on how you define lowk.

Each of those layers can have a cell, so if you have a tlc device at a 100nm pitch, you have a density of 321*3/(1e-4)^2 bits/mm, or about 1e11bits/mm2.

Fun reference: atomic density is 1atom/.5nm, so 1/5e-7^2, or 4e12/mm2 ish.

Not too far away.

https://www.statlearning.com

https://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/ADAfaEPoV/

There are other fine ones, but these are very good.

Dsa is one of many patterning assist technologies, just...an old one. Neat, but not 'new'. You use patterning assist to make smaller, more regular features, which is exactly what the 16a vs 18a refers to.

That has somewhat less to do with performance, which is tied as much to material, stress, and interface parameters. Nothing gets better from being smaller in the post dennard scaling era, the work of integration is making better devices anyway.

Patterning choices imply different consequences. For example,.a.double euv integration can take advantage of spacer assists to reduce ler and actually improve cdu even with a double expose. Selective etch can improve bias, spacer trickery can create uniquely small regular features that cannot be done with single patterns. Conversely, overlay trees get bushier, and via CD variance can cause horrific electrical variance. It is complicated, history dependent, and everything is on the developmental edge.