This was from 02014, btw.

btw, what's with the leading zero here?

It's a meme that's supposed to get people to think in >4-digit timescales, apparently. Always makes me think of octal TBH

It's there to provoke your question

Best to just downvote it then.

Indeed. Consider it trolling, ignore it. It's just stupid.

He's talking about AD 1036. Try to keep up

It's "Long Now" stuff, which really should be called "Medium Now" because they're only using one leading zero.

kragen thinks making most of his readers glitch for a second every time they read one of his dates is worth it on order to advertise for the Long Now. Really unfortunate choice, since he often has decent information to share.

I think they've over-corrected from the two digits are enough truncation that was common in computers between the 1950s and ~2000. It started to become less common then, but the phase out is arguably still going or stalled until things just die.

However OCTAL (leading zero) prefixing of a text mode number fails on a number of points:

* It's still a fixed register size (5 characters), which will overflow on the year 100000 AD.

* It's confusing, everyone else.

* It's not technically correct. (human behavior)

Truncating to two year digits was confusing because ambiguity. There is no ambiguity if a number encoded in decimal uses precisely the number of characters it needs. That's how normal humans normally write numbers.

that's my point. how does OP know GlobalFoundries is capable of 7nm if they can't even do 14nm. do you have any insider info that you can share?

I agree, and I wrote a longer comment agreeing with your point at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44503245.

No I don't have insider info. Neither do you. What an ridiculous nit to pick.

You're the one claiming it's the "most moronic decision ever".

The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that they could have executed a 7nm process, as opposed to looking at the data and coming to a rational conclusion that they couldn't.

Right, it seems like kasabali is making claims that are considerably more absolute than they would be able to justify without insider info.

> The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that they could have executed a 7nm process profitably

Why the fuck I'd have to prove that given that GloFo themselves claimed that they pulled out of it because it'd be unprofitable? Some people in this subthread are very eager to put words into my mouth.

They signed a contract with IBM to manufacture their chips at 7nm (and reneged).

I know that, but I've brought it up anyway. It's irrelevant who they've licenced it from because they executed it god damn well.