SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
China Develops High Capacity QLC 3D NAND: YMTC at 1.33 Tb
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. (YMTC) has announced that it's developed its new 128-layer 1.33 Tb QLC 3D NAND memory chip, the X2-6070. The new chip is based on its Xtacking architecture which enables it to run with super high I/O while maximising the density of its memory arrays. YMTC has also unveiled its plan for a 128-layer 512 Gb TLC chip, the X2-9060, designed to meet more diverse application requirements.
[...] The QLC based X2-6070 has 128-layers and more than 366 billion effective charge-trap memory cells. Each memory cell has 4-bit of data, which equates to 1.33 Tb of storage capacity. Everything is proportionate to cost, and it seems like YMTC, which is newer than most to 3D NAND stacking, could again improve its Xtacking architecture in the future.
Xtacking is not a typo.
Related:
Western Digital Samples 96-Layer 3D QLC NAND with 1.33 Tb Per Die
'Unstoppable' Chinese NAND fabber YMTC to unleash 64-layer flash flood before skipping ahead to 128 – analyst
SK Hynix Finishes 128-Layer 3D NAND, Plans 176-Layer 3D NAND
Report: China-Based Yangtze Memory Starts 64-Layer NAND Production
YMTC Starts Volume Production of 64-Layer 3D NAND
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 15 2020, @12:39AM (8 children)
Actually, I was going to get to that :) You see, you're completely correct: Christians all choose #1, but #3 is actually recorded in the Bible.
...and that choice completely destroys the neo-Platonic house of cards virtually all of Christian apologetics is built on. Yahweh did not start out as some Platonic omni-max deity, and his followers never imagined him that way. He is very much a product of his time and place, in this case the Ancient Near East.
Notably, there is a case in the Bible, 2 Kings if I remember right, where a pagan king powers up army via human sacrifice to his God, Chemosh...*and defeats the Israelite army.* And, by extension, Yahweh. There is also the cases of Judges 1:19, so famous that an atheist/counter-apologetics wiki even named itself "Iron Chariots."
All of this undermines the entirety of Christian apologia, not that it needed to be done in the face of people pointing out what I did above about a truly perfect being simply never creating anything else. The problem isn't what the Bible doesn't say or is misunderstood to say, oh no: the problem is what the Bible very proudly and unmistakably *does* say. It's very much like a small child coming to show you a full potty and thinking he's, pardon me, king of shit mountain.
tl;dr: not only does Yahweh not meet any definition of what it means to *be* God, he's apparently weaker than, for example, an M1 Abrams tank.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2020, @09:16PM (7 children)
I don't quite follow where your going with this. Do you think I'm a Hellenistic Jew or something? Just for the record, I left Catholicism many decades ago. I've read many of your writings and it seems like your quite logical and learned, except it also seems like you're constantly trying to "prove a negative" which isn't very logical. It seems you had a bad experience with "religion", but you still cling (in a negative sense) to the exposure. I apologize if I poured any salt in the wound!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 16 2020, @12:32AM (6 children)
That is a lot of words to say "Holy fuck, I was *not* expecting that woman to hand me my ass on a silver platter like that!" And an ugly, insulting, backhanded not-pology on top of it.
You're running away because you know I'm right. I've just ripped your entire psychopathic worldview apart--which isn't hard, since it boils down to "might makes right." The image of God you have is blasphemous and demonic; you are a devil worshiper, a death cultist. And you're hauling ass out of here because you know if you don't, if you keep engaging, at some point I'm going to knock out one of the load-bearing members of your faith and deconvert you.
And then what? What about all the time and energy (and possibly money) you put into believing? Why, that would have made you *wrong,* and that's unacceptable! You'd have to, horror of horrors, *change!* It may even make you rethink how you relate to other human beings on a fundamental level! Maybe even force you to start doing some actual moral heavy lifting when considering how to treat them! Because after all, if you *don't* believe most of humanity is destined to spend eternity in torment and deservedly so, *you can't just devalue and dismiss them,* and that's harrrrrd worrrrrrk!
Hang on, let me get out the scanning-tunneling electron microscope, mount the world's smallest violin on it, and play an arranged for fiddle remix of Brave Sir Robin.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2020, @08:42AM (5 children)
I'm the original AC you replied to, not the person who posted the grandparent. Both that AC and I have told you we're not practicing Catholics. Nonetheless, you've continued to proselytize. Why is that? You've accused me of being a user, Bot, who I most certainly am not. Why is that?
Your arguments are generally focused around the idea that the God in Abrahamic religious is evil. In the process, you actually miss the point. The question isn't whether any deity fits our definition of good and evil. The real question is whether the deity is real or not. If the deity is real, then we're subject to its authority whether we agree with its morality or not. If the deity isn't real, religion is complete and utter nonsense. My moral assessment of a deity or your moral evaluation of such a deity has no bearing on whether its real, which is what really matters.
As for your statement that religion is a justification for devaluing and dismissing people, that's inaccurate. At least in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, baptism and confirmation aren't sufficient for salvation. Instead, those religions link one's eternal fate with sins, particularly mortal sins. Devaluing and dismissing people instead of treating them with respect would be a sinful act. Even reconciliation requires a desire to repent and not continue sinning in that manner, as well as a penance that is intended as reparation for the sinful act. For that matter, what actually constitutes belief in the Christian God is a rather nuanced matter that's been discussed and debated. It cannot so readily be simplified down to the idea that some or all Christians automatically receive salvation while everyone else burns for eternity in the lake of fire. If you're as familiar with Christian writings as you say, then you should be aware of the complexity of the issue. But none of this actually matters unless the deity is real.
We live in a universe that appears finely tuned to allow for the development of life capable of pondering the nature of the universe. One explanation for the apparent fine tuning is a multiverse, a quantum foam of sorts in which universes are constantly arising like bubbles in a beer. There are a number of free parameters for each universe that are set at random for each one that pops into existence. If enough universes appear, one will support life capable of pondering why any of this exists. But why should the quantum foam exist? Why is there something instead of nothing? At some point, if you dig deep enough, there isn't a compelling answer to this question. If there's one thing I attribute to "god" with certainty, it's that something exists instead of nothing at all.
That doesn't presume that this "god" is intelligent, just that it exists. But for the sake of discussion, let's say it is. I think it's abundantly clear that there's evil in the world. If "god" is intelligent, it is either aware of the evil or it's not. If "god" is unaware of the evil, then it's not omniscient. But if "god" is aware of the evil, then why does the "god" allow it to exist? If "god" lacks the ability to intervene, then "god" is not omnipotent. In such case, why call it "god" at all? The other possibility is that "god" can intervene but chooses not to do so.
The basic concept of deism is that God created the world but has since chosen to be a passive observer instead of an active participant. This is a rather dubious assumption because to beings within the universe, divine intervention is effectively indistinguishable from a sufficiently complex predefined order to the universe. However, if such a God lacks the capability to intervene, then why call it God? Alternatively, God chooses not to intervene, instead being a passive observer to evil. If God chooses not to intervene, if God knowingly tolerates evil, then doesn't that make God evil?
The other possibility, which is inconsistent with deism, is that all possible outcomes for the universe have some degree of evil present. Short of discarding the universe altogether, some evil will exist. However, God could intervene in such a way as to minimize the amount of evil in the universe. Of course, this requires that God intervene in the universe, which is inconsistent with deism.
For clarification, does a deist God lack the ability to intervene, or does a deist God choose not to do so? If God lacks the ability to intervene after bringing the universe into existence, then why refer to the passive observer as God? If God chooses to remain a passive observer, then isn't God evil? And isn't belief in a God who chooses to remain a passive observer every bit as nihilistic as you say Abrahamic religions are?
As for my beliefs, I believe we have a responsibility to treat all humans and all other beings capable of experiencing suffering with respect, to minimize the evil in the world. I also believe that we have a responsibility to minimize the damage we inflict on our surroundings, meaning that we shouldn't destroy the environment on the only planet we can currently reach that is capable of supporting human life. I hope that there is justice in this universe, that all good deeds are eventually rewarded and all evil deeds are eventually punished. I hope that we don't just blink out of existence upon dying, but that our lives continue on in some form. And I certainly hope that even my worst enemy doesn't suffer eternally, just that eventually there is justice for all.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 17 2020, @12:50AM (4 children)
Good grief, this is like dropping pies down a black hole hoping it'll stop being hungry. Or talking to a wall. What angle do I need to turn these arguments at to get them through your skull?
The existence of *anything* that is not-God is an insoluble defeater for any religion that has a personal God-concept. The state of affairs such that nothing but God exists ("GodWorld") is by definition the most and indeed *only* possible state of perfection. Since a perfect being has no desires, there is in the most powerful, universal, and literal sense no reason for a God to create anything except perhaps copies/aspects of itself...which, itself, is problematic but at least dodges the *other* problem with the existence of non-God objects, that being "a perfect being does not and indeed cannot create imperfection."
This is the only argument anyone needs to shut down Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and most forms of Hinduism, or indeed, *any* religion with a personal God-concept. It does nothing to pantheism (which IMO is just sexed-up atheism...) nor panentheism (my take on existence). Game, set, match.
I'll humor you on the rest, though: you speak of sins and evil, but you have to first define a moral framework in which we can make these judgments. This requires both a moral epistemology (How can we know what is good or evil?) and a moral ontology (what is the "grounding" of morality itself?). Given you are some kind of Christian still, you're going to run either a natural law argument or resort to Divine Command Theory. Which is it? We'll continue once I know your position.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @04:16AM (1 child)
Christianity has issues with the logical problem of evil. Moreover, the concept of belief in God as the criterion for salvation raises questions about God's justice and what exactly constitutes belief. But I don't see that your beliefs are logical, either. The problem is that you've been proselytizing two or three ACs (there's at least one besides me) who don't claim to be practicing Christians, even when you're reminded of that fact. Your approach is reminiscent of door-to-door evangelists, reading from a script and expecting they will convert people. In fact, they're quite insufferable and almost certainly turn people away.
It is an issue that the creation of a perfectly good being could become evil. Even with free will, there is the question of why any being would actually become evil if created purely good. Of course, applying these arguments to Christianity has to take into account Isaiah 45:7.
But your argument about the behavior of a perfect being is just illogical. I see no reason why a perfect being would necessarily refrain from creating additional perfection. Moreover, a perfect being in an imperfect environment would likely desire to bring perfection to its surroundings. This is at odds with your statement that a perfect being would have no desires. Even a being that isn't perfect but believes it's perfect would quite possibly desire to bring its concept of perfection to anyone or anything in its presence. Exhibit A is the Borg, a force of evil that believes it is closer to perfection than anything else around it. The Borg rob everyone they deem worthy of assimilation of their individuality, stating that they only wish to raise quality of life. In the presence of imperfection, wouldn't a perfect being find it abhorrent and have an overwhelming desire to fix the imperfection? This, of course, is at odds with the idea that a perfect being would have no desires at all.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 18 2020, @12:28AM
A perfect being *by definition* has no desires. A desire is a lack of something. God, so defined, is perfect and self-sufficient, i.e., there is nothing one could add to God, subtract from God, or change about God that would make God in any way more perfect. I never said a perfect being couldn't create more perfection, just that it has no real reason to. It could, and this would be at worst "neutral" or slightly suspect rather than fatal to its own existence, but still.
Furthermore, God's nature also includes a property called divine aseity; what this means is everything not-God is contingent on God, and God is not contingent on anything, does not arise or emerge from anything, and does not depend on anything else for its existence. Being ontologically prior to everything else, therefore, means that there is a state of affairs I previously mentioned as "GodWorld" wherein only God exists.
Since this state is both 1) by definition the most perfect state possible and 2) by definition the most original/primitive/"earliest" state (insofar as we can speak of causality in a state of affairs in which not even time exists!), in conjunction with the above, this necessarily entails that a truly perfect being would never create any state of affairs *other* than GodWorld, i.e., would never change or disturb this eternally-existent state of perfection. More copies or aspects of itself? I guess? That is, again, suspect but not contradictory.
You have to take ALL of God's properties into account at once :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @06:13PM (1 child)
I'm the other AC, not Bot, former Catholic many decades ago. Last try since you haven't addressed any of my questions. WHAT ARE YOU GETTING AT?????? Seriously, I don't understand where your ship is pointed?
I had to go examine panentheism (new one on me). Since you don't seem to like Hinduism, does that mean your closer to a Mormon? They seem to be the next biggest group of panentheists after Hinduism. Are you trying to project a Mormon/Hindu mix to the world?
I don't follow where you logic can go from Perfect God -> replicating -> Perfect God as the only valid construct. A perfect God (if s/he existed) would be so high above us that I would think it could do whatever it wanted. Maybe it likes producing wretchedness as some kids like to incinerate ants (or something)???? Can you explain the logic that reproducing ONLY perfection Ad infinitum is the only acceptable approach for a god?
I get your angry at something (that doesn't exist I thought originally, but now with panentheism, it seems like it does exist) and Bot. Are you just venting and I should just leave you to it????
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 18 2020, @12:29AM
Do you just not understand the properties a being must have in order to *be* God? I realize this is some extreme inside baseball here, but my arguments flow solely from these properties.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...