fhssn1

The numbers 1000 and 10,000 are just to make a point. It could be 10,000 vs 100,000. I just don't know.

I've added "beyond a certain point" to 10x. So e.g., increasing from 10 to 100 helps. 100 to 1000 helps. 1000 to 10,000? maybe. 10,000 to 100,000? maybe not. And so on (like approaching diminishing returns). (again the numbers are for illustration, and would vary with the nature of work).

'Why aren't we far more productive?' sounds not too different from 'Why don't we have infinite growth on a finite planet?'

- There is not enough meaningful democratizable work. Most work is either menial, or challenging. And I'm not even talking about the third kind of work [1].

- Menial work is getting more and more automated.

- Challenging work doesn't necessarily scale with human resources beyond a certain point (e.g., If 1000 researchers are already working on cancer, increasing the number to 10,000 isn't necessarily going to help find a cure faster).

[1] https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs/

I believe you're talking about the EDA toolchain.

Even though it has a long history of open-source attempts, as pointed out by Tim in his presentation, they are few and far between, and massively underwhelming compared to the thriving open source software community.

However, if this initiative takes off, it'll be a big help in creating an open source EDA toolchain community.

Stay tuned for algorithmic advancements.

> ... this stumped John Conway!

Do you have a source for this? Thanks