Exactly, I'm a mechanical engineer and I still have tools given to me by my machinist great uncle from WWII that are not only functional, they're identical to a new tool I'd buy today for that purpose, from the same manufacturer. This is the difference the OP was highlighting
We've also been doing machining in the modern sense for at least a hundred and fifty years. The GPU as a concept is about 30 years old, and in the modern sense much younger than that.
Innovation occurs on a sigmoid curve, we're still very early in the sigmoid for software and computer hardware, and very late in the sigmoid for machining, unless you include CNC, in which case, we're back to software and computer hardware being the new parts.
A better example would be the tape out and lifetime for semiconductor fabs, which are only about 70 years old and have lifetimes measured in the decade range.
Interesting thought but is it that the sigmoid curve can represent the developments in SW and/or HW? To reach the saturation point we need to be able to define a system up to the point where there are almost no more unknowns (variables), no? I am thinking that this probably isn't possible in the context of {SW, HW}.
Are those tools functional? Have you ever checked? I'm not sure what tools you are talking about, but likely some of them are measurement tools and they can seem to work perfect while giving the wrong measurement. Other might be cutting tools that cut, but they are a bit dull and if you don't know how to check you won't realize the cuts are not as good as new anymore (or maybe you have sharpened them and they now cut the wrong profile...). There are many ways a tool can seem functional but be wrong.
> I'm not sure what tools you are talking about, but likely some of them are measurement tools
If you don't know something for sure, it's best to not make assumptions. We're not LLMs and don't need to spit out something confidently without understanding it.
They are things like:
-Measurement tools that can be checked easily against Measurement standards (its taught as good practice to check this anyway each use)
-files
-transfer punches
-feeler gages (again, easily checked)
-bore gages
-gage pins
- 123 blocks
- on and on...
No they don't. The 3 year number came from some random person on the internet who claimed to be a Google employee and was denied by Google, as you can see on any of the articles about this claim:
> Recent purported comments about Nvidia GPU hardware utilization and service life expressed by an “unnamed source” were inaccurate, do not represent how we utilize Nvidia’s technology, and do not represent our experience.
Exactly, I'm a mechanical engineer and I still have tools given to me by my machinist great uncle from WWII that are not only functional, they're identical to a new tool I'd buy today for that purpose, from the same manufacturer. This is the difference the OP was highlighting
We've also been doing machining in the modern sense for at least a hundred and fifty years. The GPU as a concept is about 30 years old, and in the modern sense much younger than that.
Innovation occurs on a sigmoid curve, we're still very early in the sigmoid for software and computer hardware, and very late in the sigmoid for machining, unless you include CNC, in which case, we're back to software and computer hardware being the new parts.
A better example would be the tape out and lifetime for semiconductor fabs, which are only about 70 years old and have lifetimes measured in the decade range.
Interesting thought but is it that the sigmoid curve can represent the developments in SW and/or HW? To reach the saturation point we need to be able to define a system up to the point where there are almost no more unknowns (variables), no? I am thinking that this probably isn't possible in the context of {SW, HW}.
Are those tools functional? Have you ever checked? I'm not sure what tools you are talking about, but likely some of them are measurement tools and they can seem to work perfect while giving the wrong measurement. Other might be cutting tools that cut, but they are a bit dull and if you don't know how to check you won't realize the cuts are not as good as new anymore (or maybe you have sharpened them and they now cut the wrong profile...). There are many ways a tool can seem functional but be wrong.
> I'm not sure what tools you are talking about, but likely some of them are measurement tools
If you don't know something for sure, it's best to not make assumptions. We're not LLMs and don't need to spit out something confidently without understanding it.
1 reply →
Yes, and yes.
They are things like: -Measurement tools that can be checked easily against Measurement standards (its taught as good practice to check this anyway each use) -files -transfer punches -feeler gages (again, easily checked) -bore gages -gage pins - 123 blocks - on and on...
> but likely some of them are measurement tools
where and why did you come to this conclusion?
2 replies →
No they don't. The 3 year number came from some random person on the internet who claimed to be a Google employee and was denied by Google, as you can see on any of the articles about this claim:
> Recent purported comments about Nvidia GPU hardware utilization and service life expressed by an “unnamed source” were inaccurate, do not represent how we utilize Nvidia’s technology, and do not represent our experience.