amirhirsch

"By how much?"

"2⁻¹⁸² off the exponent."

"Go back to bed."

I have thought that there is a big opportunity financing components by optioning the sale of overstocked parts ahead of time. For a consumer electronics product that had heavy Q4 sales, my annual sales were entirely dependent on how many chips I could order by October 19, but then I'd have excess stock every January because things are sold in reels of varying sizes.

I’ve been making hardware for 20 years. My highest-volume product was Flybrix, a LEGO drone kit manufactured by Seeed and UniPrecision in China and by Sparqtron in Fremont, California. I’d be happy to work with you on a v2 reboot: Flybrix Swarmz, because every American high school needs a drone swarm.

Beyond that, I’ve worked with many domestic suppliers and built ITAR-controlled products as well. Even without owning the production capacity, if you can offer Net 90 on fabrication and extend credit for components--beyond existing DigiKey, Arrow, Mouser, and vendor credit lines--then I can build products and get paid without putting all the capital at risk upfront.

Factoring is expensive, especially against a purchase order rather than an invoice, and I don’t know of anyone offering working-capital credit based solely on an SBIR award.

Credit is what makes the spice flow.

That paper is in the wiki refs but Hastad’s original is from 1986

There is a beautiful proof of the disjunction between AC0 and NC showing parity cannot be done in AC0 using harmonic analysis of Boolean functions

For those unfamiliar: NC is the class of problems which can be solved in polylogarthmic depth with polynomial number of logic gates. It is unproven if NC != P similar to P != NP.

1. The OP has nothing to do with quantum computers.

2. Quantum computing deals in coherent quantum states: associated with N qubits there are 2^N complex amplitudes. You can measure by sampling the square-magnitude of the complex amplitude which turns it into a Probability Distribution. Quantum computing "gates" cause interference in the complex amplitude of entangled qubits cancelling out incorrect results, such that if you maintain coherence for long enough and sample the final state and measure the probability distribution, you get a computationally useful result. The key challenge in quantum computing is extending the coherence time of a larger and larger number of qubits, which is why you hear so much about quantum error correction. Recent results from Google showed a scaling law for "surface codes" using multiple qubits to create an error-corrected topological qubit with extended lifetime. There is no telling how far this scaling law will go, but as long as Gil Kalai is in the next room, it is unlikely there will be actual useful quantum computation for a while.

The FPGA emulator we made had to pass the xxdp test suite which was provided to me on punched tape and microfiche. The emulator had a specific test for FDIV overflow which even tested the accuracy of the partial result. None of the software emulators I tested did this. I emailed Gordon Bell who introduced me to Bob Supnkk, and we found the original flowcharts for it so I could replicate the divider logic precisely. Imagine a nuclear reactor dependent on this lol.

I built the PDP-11/70 emulator that controls the nuclear reactors in Ontario. That was 20 years ago and I'm probably still the youngest person who can read PDP-11 assembly (and the raw octal)