does bubble memory count as solid state?
I guess? I mean, it has no moving parts. but it requires preheating and involves movement of magnetic fields across a surface...
https://t.co/VG3XdoQ6OZ
That falls apart when you consider that vacuum tubes aren't considered "solid state", something about how they use thermionic emission and magnetic fields is enough to push it out of the realm of just electron movement.
— laura possum #blm (@quartizine) January 3, 2021
It has to warm up, yes, but it doesn't melt. The crystal remains solid, and only the magnetic fields move.
The other axis is managed by spinning the disc, and waiting for it to rotate around.
https://t.co/JlCPyOXXzL
So LaserCard is an interesting format: It's fundamentally the same as CD-ROMs, LaserDisc, DVD, etc, but instead of spinning, it's a flat grid layout. pic.twitter.com/bRmMCNL1vD
— foone (@Foone) November 21, 2018
does it count as solid state if doesn't move while in use, but it's connected to things that do?
they're immobile, and the universe spins around them?
solid state discs aren't "solid state" because they're not moving. not moving has nothing to do with if they're solid state or not
integrated circuits. all the flash memory stuff happens inside a die of silicon.
It's a chunk of garnet, not anything semiconductory
I want to make a rotating solid state disk.
https://t.co/aVU1sri57P
I was actually researching something about slip rings, and found this lovely picture.
— foone (@Foone) September 16, 2020
Want some ethernet you can rotate 360 degrees? NOW YOU CAN! pic.twitter.com/dLqMxAR5Hv
More from foone
More from Tech
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
There is a lot of confusion about carbon budgets and how quickly emissions need to fall to zero to meet various warming targets. To cut through some of this morass, we can use some very simple emission pathways to explore what various targets would entail. 1/11 pic.twitter.com/Kriedtf0Ec
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) September 24, 2020
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
You May Also Like
Independent and 100% owned by Joe, no networks, no middle men and a 100M+ people audience.
👏
https://t.co/RywAiBxA3s
Joe is the #1 / #2 podcast (depends per week) of all podcasts
120 million plays per month source https://t.co/k7L1LfDdcM
https://t.co/aGcYnVDpMu
LifeLog, via DARPA, terminated on Feb 4th, 2004.
Facebook was launched on Feb 4th, 2004.
Many of the LifeLog team became execs at FB.
Zuckerberg is a figurehead.
CIA allowed Cambridge to help Trump win
https://t.co/enzOXDCogV
Project: Lifelog
— Robert Horan (@Robby12692) December 13, 2018
Started by DARPA in 1999, the goal of Lifelog was to create a database on civilians without their knowledge, and track everything they do.
The project "ended" on Feb 4th, 2004.
Facebook began the exact same day.
The CIA funneled tens of millions into Facebook. pic.twitter.com/r7hwF0v9kh
Pentagon Kills LifeLog