Re:Developing open-source FPGA tools
by saagarjha on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @07:28AM
(#21523293)
Psst…I think you mean "silicon".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Developing open-source FPGA tools
by DoingIsLearning on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @07:40AM
(#21523379)
Haha indeed! I will leave it for traceability.
I had to apply some bathroom silicone sealant over the weekend so I just go ahead and blame it on that.
Re:Developing open-source FPGA tools
by segfaultbuserr on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @09:07AM
(#21524162)
And we use silicone thermal paste on top of a piece of silicon ;-)
Re:Developing open-source FPGA tools
by arcticbull on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @12:56PM
(#21527179)
Nothing but the finest pulverized silver for me, thanks ;)
I removed those sticky e's from your fine comment above. I hope that's ok. It makes the discussion less distracting.
Re:Developing open-source FPGA tools
by DoingIsLearning on Thursday November 14, 2019 @10:10AM
(#21535931)
No problem at all, it is a relevant discussion but in a way I now feel I moved attention away from the intent of the OP which was to raise awareness and support for Symbiflow.
I've edited obvious typos in some comments. I can't seem to help it.
Re:Developing open-source FPGA tools
by DarkWiiPlayer on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @10:28AM
(#21525172)
Psst...I think you mean "silicium" :P
(before any of you start typing your answers: that's the joke)
Re:Developing open-source FPGA tools
by segfaultbuserr on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @11:00AM
(#21525579)
I always wonder why "silicium" is disused in favor of silicon, given that "-ium" is used liberally today, and you made me to look it up. Apparently, "-ium" is a suffix for metal only. But when naming new/hypothetical elements that have no standard name yet, IUPAC's Systematic Element Name rules overrides it and use "-ium" for all elements, but when the name is given, the usual rules apply.