This is utterly, utterly mind-boggling to me. Seriously no one had any curiosity to look in to these things for 14 years? I mean, I guess someone was bored somewhere along the way, but usually that sort of thing becomes an open secret... not here, I guess.

This guy played it straight: these measurements, this result, that conclusion. But the evidence chain was bad: results couldn't be derived from those measurements, and conclusion couldn't be derived from those results. So I called it out.

This is literally my day job, so I don't really like seeing poorly reasoned research, and maybe I'm more sensitive than most. But if you're going to play it straight, I think you should get it right. If that means you use a lot more weasel words, so be it -- if something is your opinion I can't argue with it. But when you state it as a fact, you better be able to back it up.

I'm sorry, I hate to be that guy, but while STEP files are often used as the final export to the contract manufacturer to cut the molds, or for some level of fit checking, they're not used for anything else. The real engineering that you can actually learn from is in the SolidWorks (or equivalent) part files, and you'll note that they're not offering those.

There are places you can spend less money than this guide suggests (Weller soldering gear is a ripoff, mediocre performance for premium prices; Amscope microscopes are surprisingly great) and places you should spend a lot more (Rigol is not great, at least go for Siglent... and you should plan to spend as much on probes as you do on oscilloscopes... and you probably then want all your oscilloscopes to be able to use those fancy probes....) but, yeah: money pit.

By not having to pull in anything from the constant pools and thereby avoid memory stalls in the fast path, we got to use random numbers profligately and still run quickly and efficiently, and get to sleep quickly and efficiently. It was a fun little piece of engineering. I'm not sure how much it mattered, but I enjoyed writing it. (I think I did most of it after hours either way.)

Alas, I don't think it ever shipped because we eventually moved to an even smaller and cheaper Cortex-M0 processor which lacked those instructions. Also my successor on that project threw most of it out and rewrote it, for reasons both good and bad.

The Mob Museum was great though.

The giveaway is the handling of uncertainty. That's too many decimal places for some of these measurements: 10um (0.01mm) is not reliably measurable by a cheapo caliper, and even trying to do it with a good caliper or micrometer, you'll find that everyday objects simply cannot be reliably straightforwardly measured with that level of precision. (You need cleaning procedures, standardized handling, standardized sampling, etc.) And quoting "4.1g (5.1% too heavy)" versus "4.0g (2.6% too heavy)" is just absurd: that last digit really doesn't mean much. So don't treat it like it does.

For example, on my random first d6 at hand, I get 4.47g from my nice scale and somewhere between 14.82 and 14.85 mm on the first face dimension, depending on how I measure, from my Mitutoyo caliper. I have a micrometer in the shop, but you can see that it'd be pointless to go get it. The next two faces are (14.79 to 14.84) and (14.76 to 14.87), so it's consistently like this.

Likewise, χ² to five decimal places isn't terribly useful... especially since you haven't really described the test you're running....

In general there's a lot of "look at me make measurements" here that might be impressive. There is very little "what is the true value of this measurement, and how well can we assert that", and simply not enough "is this the right thing to be measuring, and how much does that factor matter". That last one is critical: the actual weight of a die is, I think, not important at all. It's weight distribution that matters, so who cares about 0.1g of difference. Unless you're making a batch uniformity claim? But really this evidence just says more about your measuring equipment. And it's well known that different color resins, especially black, white, and red, are pretty differently loaded with pigments, so they have different properties. You can't just expect them to be the same, but the author seems surprised that they aren't.

And then we get to "These dice are safe to use" without any real description of the criteria or threshold. I say "this report is not safe to use (for serious purposes)"!

It's cute, it's a fun little minute to read on the internet this morning. But it's silly, and if my students back in the day or coworkers today sent it to me, they'd be getting red ink and remedial lectures in measurement uncertainty.

That's a lot of stuff, but it also doesn't include a lot of the stuff people claim AI can do.

It's made a huge difference in my life, for the positive, and that's really surprised me. I kind of expected to hate it. It only notifies me when my phone vibrates, and I've got my phone set to be particular about notifications, so that doesn't happen often. But it does mean I miss notifications and messages way less often. I used to never notice vibration alerts if I was out walking and my phone was in my pocket. Now I can respond to people moderately quickly!

The sleep tracking is kind of worthless, but it's nice to have stats. It's mostly useful to notice longer-term trends or if something went horribly wrong (as it did last night for me), you just have it there and have something to look at, already collected.

It tells the time accurately: no more mentally compensating in my head for the drift of the watch (admittedly, my last Timex, despite being great in all other respects, was the driftiest quartz watch I've ever owned).

But the fitness tracking... the fitness tracking has genuinely been effective in actually getting me to go out and do things. I really love seeing maps of where I've been when I take a city walk, or getting run stats as I slowly level up as a runner. I don't take it particularly seriously and I think that's just about right.

I really expected to hate this thing, but instead I love it. Maybe that's because I treat it as a dumbwatch plus fitness tracker and notification bell for my phone? The idea of having games, much less a web browser, on it really does sound ghastly.

I countered a different argument (which does appear elsewhere in this thread). You are absolutely right that there will be general price distortion from this mess. I disagree that it will be extremely bad, but I do agree that it's a problem and needs attention. It's just been difficult to tell that this is what some comments have meant to discuss, instead of the more basic issues others have been talking about.

Nasdaq, Inc. is a company with a stock market ("the NASDAQ") and an index "Nasdaq 100"). They want SpaceX to be listed on their market, because they like having more things on their market for all the usual reasons. They are, apparently, offering to manipulate their index to win the listing.

Accordingly, anything that uses or tracks this particular index (Nasdaq 100), such as the QQQ fund, will potentially have to pay for this manipulation.

Anybody not holding or indexing to the Nasdaq 100 index contents will not particularly care and will not really gain or lose any more money than on an ordinary trading day. In particular, this will have zero effect on stocks that merely trade on the NASDAQ exchange.

Indexing to the Nasdaq 100 is pretty uncommon, outside of QQQ, so most people will not care.

The SSDs were never going to be dominant at straight read or write workloads, but they were absolutely king of the hill at mixed workloads because, as you note, time to first byte was so low that they switched between read and write faster than anything short of DRAM. This was really, really useful for a lot of workloads, but benchmarkers rarely bothered to look at this corner... despite it being, say, the exact workload of an OS boot drive.

For years there was nothing that could touch them in that corner (OS drive, swap drive, etc) and to this day it's unclear if the best modern drives still can or can't compete.

If they had been cheaper, I think they'd have been really, really popular.

And if no shrink was possible, is that because it was (a) possible but too hard; (b) known blocks to a die shrink; or (c) execs didn't want to pay to find out?

This showed up as amazing numbers on a 50%-read, 50%-write mix. Which, guess what, a lot of real workloads have, but benchmarks don't often cover well. This is why it's a great OS boot drive: there's so much cruddy logging going on (writes) at the same time as reads to actually load the OS. So Optane was king there.

It was also the best boot drive money could buy. Still is, I think, though other comments in the thread ask how it compares against today's best, which I'd also love to see.