If you use the right color of light, then the doppler effect means that the atoms will only absorb (and be pushed by) light that they are headed towards. That means that the light will always act as a brake for the atoms and never an accelerator, so the fluid will cool. If you do this from all directions, the fluid will start to stay still in one place and get very close to absolute zero. Idk, I just read the Wikipedia article, but that is my best attempt at an ELI18
You’re not wrong that GPU and AI silicon design are tightly coupled, but my point was that both of the GPU manufacturers are dedicating hardware to AI/ML in their consumer products. Nvidia has the tensor cores in its GPUs that it justifies to consumers with DLSS and RT but we’re clearly designed for AI/ML use cases when they presented them with Turing. AMD has the XDNA AI Engine that it is putting its APUs separate from its RDNA GPUs
Fair enough. Was just asking because the choice of company surprised me. AMD is putting "AI Engines in their new CPUs (separate silicon design from their GPUs) and while Nvidia largely only sells GPUs that are less universal, they’ve had dedicated AI hardware (tensor cores) in their offerings for the past three generations. If anything, Intel is barely keeping up with its competition in this area (for the record, I see vanishingly little value in the focus on AI as a consumer, so this isn’t really a ding on Intel in my books, more so making the observation from a market forces perspective)
Why call out Intel? Pretty sure AMD and Nvidia are both putting dedicated AI hardware in all of their new and upcoming product lines. From what I understand they are even generally doing it better than Intel. Hell, Qualcomm is advertising their AI performance on their new chips and so is Apple. I don’t think there is anyone in the chip world that isn’t hopping on the AI train
How nearby is nearby though? And, in the context of the proposed use case for defending a crowded stadium in a populated area, does this put people down range as well that could also be impaired by the pellets?
Wow, this article reads very biased in favor of the NIMBYs, especially right out of the gate (it does bring in some counter-narratives by the middle/end). “real concerns” is an unnecessary adjective that downplays the fact that one of these concerns appears to be TOD causing traffic and parking issues as if the alternative wouldn’t and another appears to be endangerment of seniors without a clear causal link. “established low-density neighborhoods” as if no infill/up zoning should ever take place and we should only ever build towers on farmland at the outskirts of the city where they would definitely drive high car usage and traffic for inner neighborhoods. The writer is speaking from the perspective of the project opponents, but does not make it clear that these are biased perspectives being reported on and not facts, especially with the “real” preface
Nvidia does not have a strong history of open sourcing things, to say the least. That last bit sounds like pure hopium