Nope, thermodynamics is weird at small scales. Hot spots can absolutely reach 1400C if not designed not to. Sophie Wilson (initial architect of the ARM processor) has talked about how poorly designed silicon can reach point temperatures hotter than a nuclear reactor steady state.
That’s crazy. I thought maybe some of the other elements used in modern semiconductors might melt first. The wiring seems like a potential problem. But before that even the elements they use in the transistors themselves could be an issue.
The wiring has lower resistance for a bunch of different reasons, so the heat has a tendency to be concentrated on the transistors themselves (which are mostly silicon, just doped).
Like I have already said in another comment, semiconductors and metals behave differently when temperature increases.
For metals the electrical resistance increases with temperature, causing a negative feedback that limits the increase of the temperature, while for semiconductors the electrical resistance decreases with temperature above a certain threshold, so once that threshold is reached positive feedback increases the temperature very quickly until the semiconductor is melted, unless there is some protection system that limits the power dissipation through the semiconductor.
That is why it is very easy to melt silicon in an integrated circuit or in a discrete device, despite its high melting point.
The melting of silicon was a common phenomenon already during the second breakdown of power transistors, e.g. in audio amplifiers or in TV sets, more than a half of century ago.
In semiconductors there is a positive feedback between temperature and the current that passes through them, so once a certain threshold is passed, the current and the temperature grow very quickly until the semiconductor is melted. This is opposite to the behavior of metals, where resistance grows with temperature, tending to limit the current that passes through the metal, when it overheats.
The currents through the transistors of SOTA logic gates are very small, but their volumes are also very small, so the power density is similar to that in high power transistors.
Thus thermal breakdown that leads to silicon melting is easily achievable. This is why any modern CPU has on-die temperature sensors, so that temperature is monitored and power dissipation is limited, to ensure that the threshold that triggers positive thermal feedback is never reached.
Indeed. For instance, dopants can diffuse and metals can intermix with silicon (silicide formation), both degrade device performance. Solder and packages melt before any of this happens.
It is easy to melt the semiconductor in a semiconductor device long before the solder or package materials are melted.
Above a certain temperature threshold, the electrical resistance of semiconductors drops exponentially with temperature, which is why NTC (negative thermal coefficient) thermistors are made of semiconductor materials.
This causes a positive feedback loop that increases the current very quickly and concentrates it through a narrow channel through the semiconductor (so the current density can be extremely high even when the total current is still low), which can easily reach 1500 Celsius degrees, melting the silicon, while the temperature of the package and of the solder remains very low (because the time is too short for the temperature to propagate outwards from the melted silicon channel).
If that were to become reality, and I won’t guess at the odds of that, is because it grew the world economic pie. Thinking about it in terms of the size of the pie today is treating it like a zero sum game. It’s a different game.
Pretty much all immigrants are good, or at least good for something. People generally want or need all the same things. Xenophobia by and large is an irrational urge.
I am sure that Denmark, a country that amongst other things imposed forced sterilisation against the Inuit population up until the 1970s, and abused people with disabilities [0], is offering black-skinned people equal opportunities and not pigeon-holing them into unemployment and social exclusion...
I mean, it's not particularly difficult to imagine(and I'm an immigrant to the UK). You move here, then after a while you bring over your retired parents to care for them in their old age. They are not contributing financially to the system but they are costing British taxpayers a lot of money.
The point though - it's irrelevant. Even those cases, and even straight up cases where people come here and just go on the dole, don't change the fact that as a whole immigrants are a net positive to the country(financially), and that's based on the OFR findings not my imagination.
Brexit was about leaving Europe, whose immigrants where overwhelmingly young people or couples which would've been net contributors, spending up to a decade before returning to their home countries. I have literally seen this happen dozen of times in my time there.
Myself I have spent almost two decades in Britain, paid my taxes (at the highest rate at that), and decided to leave when I saw that the immigration talk had turned everybody into racist lunatics, and even people like me, from the same continent, were made to feel unwelcome by this rhetoric. For all I care, it's a failed state, yet it has not yet seen the bottom until it progresses its descent into decay, the same that has infected the US and elected Trump.
You will get your Reform government and it'll be Brexit times 10. Only then, maybe, the British people will stop falling for far-right propaganda paid for the Russians.
> Unrestricted immigration destroys democratic high trust societies.
In the United States it's pretty clearly the nativists destroying the society, the immigrants are largely baffled about what the hell we're doing to ourselves and why.
> Unrestricted immigration destroys democratic high trust societies.
I’m currently living through a democratic high trust society that’s destroying itself with immigrants being 0% to blame. I’d swap the Christian nationalists for immigrants in a heartbeat, no matter where they’re from.
Suppose you add a very high tax (it would have to be a wealth tax, not income, because they don’t have much income.)
Zuckerberg just moved to Florida for a tiny wealth tax in California.
These people would just leave the state or leave the country. It’s been happening in Norway with just a small wealth tax.
It’s not impossible, but it’s also not that simple to do.
These kind of policies are risky, because you may drive away the next generation of entrepreneurs and the jobs they create.
The rich should pay more taxes, but not to the point that it would chase them away or disincentive them from building companies.
That being said, taxes are incredibly destructive. Every dollar you tax someone is much more than a dollar you take from that person and the economy. Government is too big, it’s out of control. They can’t balance a budget either, so we pay an additional destructive tax called inflation. I would personally like to see government go on a diet to half or a quarter of the size it is and reduce taxes at the low end instead.
As you said a wealth tax would be needed, as opposed to income tax.
Taxes always have some optimum level: a point where benefit to society as a whole is maximized. Too high, and indeed investors / entrepreneurs could move away. Too low, and society leaves money on the table that could be better used elsewhere.
The simple fact that a society allows individuals to amass $100B+ (or even a 'mere' $1B) shows that wealth taxes are below what's optimal. If existing at all. It doesn't matter if wealth is stuck in assets, it's still society-distorting / corrupting power. There's no benefit to society to have individuals sit on say, >100x the wealth of average folks. Let alone 1000x, 100,000x or even higher.
So why is there no such wealth tax? Answer that question (in depth!), and you're getting closer to fixing the problem.
> These people would just leave the state or leave the country. It’s been happening in Norway with just a small wealth tax.
Would they really, though?
A lot of people say this, but I think one very important thing is being overlooked: should a billionaire leave the US, they'd also lose a significant amount of influence over US policy. Especially when their wealth is built significantly upon the stocks of major US companies, giving up that influence is a huge risk to their wealth.
Just think - not only would the billionaire's influence suddenly become stigmatized "foreign influence", but it would also become tainted by the fact that they fled the country to avoid taxes. Politicians on the opposing side of an issue the billionaire wants to fight for would have a field day pointing out both every time the billionaire attempted to influence any policy.
Based on what Sarah Wynn-Williams told about Zuck and what we've seen a lot of these state out loud (and know a lot more that have exrepessed this in private) seems that the society is being held hostage by child's who are threatening us with a tantrum, should we refuse the lollipop.
I think it's about time we turn adult now. The coming of age for humanity, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer used to say.
Insta and YT were bought fairly early on the ascent and then pumped hard with some resources and autonomy before being folded in completely. WhatsApp is a legit counterpoint though.
They were made into social media, but when they were aquired they were just video hosting and sms replacements with little (no?) social engagement aspect.
You must be thinking of something else
reply