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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:20PM (1 child)
You come across as a bad faith troll. That's the most logical way to characterize your behavior. I'm not Bot. I know you have some petulant rivalries with other users, but don't drag me into them. Grow up. Also, I posted my original comment for the purpose of stating that Christianity doesn't teach that something like a vaccine could be the Mark of the Beast. I posted that because I don't want people to be dissuaded from getting vaccinated. Frankly, your continued trolling is distracting away from that message and, in effect, supporting the anti-vaxxer. You've continued even after I made this clear to me. Your comments are full of logical fallacies and it implies that you're not interested in discussing in good faith. I was a practicing Catholic for a long time but I actually left the Catholic Church. That's right, I'm not a practicing Catholic, but I am familiar with the teachings of Catholicism.
Your first argument about the behavior of a perfect being begs the question of imperfect beings would be able to know and predict what should be the behavior of a perfect being. It also assumes that the only there is only one possible form for a perfect being, precluding the ability for a perfect being to create any sort of perfection aside from clones of itself. That doesn't logically follow at all.
Regarding your truth table, your arguments rely on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, saying that no Christian would choose certain outcomes. Moreover, at least in Catholicism, it's generally explained that free will exists in Heaven, but those in Heaven are there because they've previously chosen of their free will to not sin. And I notice that you've moved the goalposts and are no longer focused on church fathers. Perhaps the error about Theodore was an honest mistake, because he's not actually pre-Nicene. Moreover, many parts of doctrine were debated early in Christianity. You'll find writings that God the Father created Jesus, for example. This is now rejected as heresy, but was debated then. Universalism was another such idea that was discussed and ultimately rejected. And the Bible actually mentions some of the earliest debates about matters of doctrine, such as the role of circumcision in Christianity. Accepting any modern interpretation of Christianity, Catholic or otherwise, has to rely on the implicit trust that the doctrinal debates were guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at the correct answer. Even if true, there are those who choose to twist the doctrine and Christian teaching for their own purposes, as you can see in the OP of this thread, or with any of the other corrupt people twisting Christianity for their own personal benefit. And yes, the Catholic Church is full of corrupt individuals who will happily do such things, too.
As for your comments about a simulated universe, of course you're always subject to the whims of the being who would create such a simulation. Thank you Captain Obvious. As for your argument that everything happens at least once given an infinite amount of time, that argument is also flawed. Spacetime arises from the constructs of the simulation and time as we know it may only exist within the confines of the simulation. We really have no basis to speculate on the nature of anything beyond the confines of our universe, simulated or otherwise. It could exist within the confines of a larger and more complex universe than ours, capable of simulating a universe like our own and retaining many similar features as our own. But time could behave very differently in another universe, where there could be weirdness like multiple time dimensions or perhaps no time dimension at all. If I simulate a universe or some subset thereof, anything that is present within the simulation has no concept of anything beyond the confines of the simulation.
And yes, I can change the rules of the simulation while it's progressing. I can rewind the simulation or completely terminate it. But if the simulations were complex enough to give rise to intelligent beings capable of questioning the nature of their reality, they wouldn't be aware of anything beyond the confines of their simulation. For that matter, they couldn't really distinguish me changing the rules during their simulation from a yet undiscovered principle that has always governed their simulation. Let's say I modify the code during the simulation to implement something. To the beings within the universe, it would appear no different than if the rules of the simulation always behaved that way, perhaps if I put if (time > some_value) { ... }. It would appear exactly the same to them.
For that matter, your "suck it up and burn forever" doesn't make sense. Let's assume that everything happens at least once given an infinite amount of time, which is your argument. That means at least once, everyone who is in Hell gets released and enters Heaven. And even if everyone was cast into Hell, including those previously in Heaven, there remains an infinite amount of time after that occurs. And over the course of that infinity, everyone in Hell would have to be released and allowed to enter Heaven at least once according to your logic. And, by definition, that does not equate to "suck it up and burn forever" because they're not burning forever if they're released into Heaven eventually. And, after all, that must happen over the course of an infinite amount of time, per your logic. So what you're describing doesn't really make sense.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 15 2020, @01:20AM
You have massively underestimated me, and badly overplayed your hand. Your second paragraph, "Your first argument about the behavior of a perfect being begs the question of imperfect beings would be able to know and predict what should be the behavior of a perfect being. It also assumes that the only there is only one possible form for a perfect being, precluding the ability for a perfect being to create any sort of perfection aside from clones of itself. That doesn't logically follow at all," blows a hole in your argument. If an imperfect being isn't able to know or predict the behavior of a perfect one, *you cannot know God when you see him and you can speak of nothing about him.*
So you hit the nuclear global-skepticism button to try and win that argument. Okay. Only it took you out in the blast too, leaving you exactly as debilitated as your opponent. Not to mention, a being need not be perfect to fool you; any sufficiently clever and powerful *evil* being could fool you, 100%, into thinking it was good. "Faith" will not protect you here; a sufficiently powerful evil "simulator overlord" like you're proposing Yahweh is would look *exactly* the same to the beings (read: you) in the simulation, and you would never, ever, ever be able to even explore the possibility that you might be being fooled. Even your much-vaunted free will might be a delusion, either an artifact of the simulation or something the simulator programmed into you for the proverbial shits'n'giggles. Since, of course, might makes right and it makes no sense to argue with the simulator-overlord, riiiiiiiiiight?
*And you have no epistemological tools, none, by definition, which could give you even the slightest insight into this problem!* Well done. Epistemological M.A.D. is a strange game; the only winning move is not to play.
Of all that giant wall of text you posted, only the last paragraph has any actual information in it, and I was waiting for you to pounce on that one! Glad to see you were paying attention instead of just throwing a temper tantrum. And my reply is "yes, exactly correct." So what? All I'm doing is pointing out a few of the implications of your arguments, taken to their logical and inevitable extremes. I'm glad you're engaged enough to fill that gap in. You're completely right: your worldview *does* lead to exactly that. *This is a sign of an exploded contradiction.*
The rest, though, unfortunately *does* sink to basically the level of a temper tantrum. As, incidentally, does your entire worldview: when you get right down to it, everything you're saying is a fancy, gussied-up way of saying "might makes right." Or perhaps "because fuck you, that's why."
So let's run this one through its paces too: what if...wait for it...this God-simulator-overlord of yours...is *also* a simulation? You have precisely zero way to prove or disprove *this* one, either. Nor is this a new idea: Buddhism speculates that Brahma, more or less the Hindu supreme being and creator of everything, believes himself to be the Godhead out of *precisely* this kind of ignorance, unaware of his own nature and knowing only that no other being than him existed prior to his acts of creative will.
Do you see the parallels? *Will* you see them, or will you cover your eyes and plug your ears and run screaming back into the comfort of your delusions?
I have to touch on Universalism though, as you appear to be attacking a strawman: Universalism does *not* contradict free will. You seem to be thinking of some sort of one-size-fits-all scenario where people, regardless of the state of their souls, are told "you're going to Heaven *right now* whether you like it or not!"
Rather, consider this: any being that is not-God is finite, imperfect, changeable, and mutable. There is at least one state S such that God considers a being fit for Heaven, imperfections or not. Using our old friend the law of large numbers again, as time (causality, whatever you want to call it) T approaches infinity, the probability of a given soul finding itself in this state is 100%, *unless something external to it is interfering with this process.* Notice I don't place limits on how long this is or what obstacles said soul might face. Choose an arbitrarily large number, it's still less than infinity. That is what infinity means. But in keeping with the idea of "according to his works," said soul will revolve through any amount of torment until it finds itself in state S, whether through experience and growth or even pure random chance. You might wear out your zero key typing the number of years, but it will happen. Just not before the soul is actually ready to be in God's presence.
Unless, of course, your God is deliberately refusing to allow this to happen. I've actually heard some apologists argue this, that God specifically removes human free will or other faculties in Hell such that growth of this sort is no longer possible. Which is an odd thing to do for a guy that values free will so highly, and is also frankly incredibly petty, childish, and vengeful. And masturbatory, as your God appears to be rules-lawyering himself for whatever reason. Then again, read without a slavish devotional eye, pretty much everything Yahweh does is masturbatory; the guy reminds me of an omnipotent Kim Jong-Un. What an ego!
Annihilationists (this is the position I took when I was still a death cultist like you...) point out that Annihilationism comports with free will at least as well as, if not better than, the idea of eternal torment. It also fits the plainest meanings of Revelation; you must allow words like death to *mean* death, destruction to *mean* destruction, and so on. Furthermore, "aion[io(n/s)]" and its derivatives also do NOT carry the force of "eternal" on their own. Sure, sure, you'll point to the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Mt. 25 and say "if aionios kolasis means temporary punishment, then aionion zoe means temporary life!!!1111" but again...the word takes the force of its duration from what it's paired with. This sounds nitpicky, but it's important, and key to note is that *all of this nuance is lost in the most popular English translations of the source material!* *Do* avail yourself of the nuances and meanings of the word "kolasi[s/n]" (and its opposition with "timoria!") before commenting further on this. Meditate on the parable of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. Think hard, very hard, about what all these words like "eternal" and "omnipotent" you keep throwing around about your God actually mean.
Mostly I'm just fascinated, in a horrified way, about what would lead an intelligent person to this kind of complete cognitive and moral surrender. You must think you're getting something out of it. And you're willing to throw the entire human race that doesn't "believe right" under the eternally-torturous bus so long as you get yours. Do you have any idea how completely pathological this is to any sane, functioning sentient? Do you even give a damn? The kind of selfishness, literally infinite selfishness, it takes to believe like you do is incomprehensible to me.
The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that you don't really understand the things you're saying, which is why I've been probing this like someone with a loose tooth. Huge, all-encompassing ignorance is the most charitable explanation, yes, because the others include a complete lack of mirror neurons and social function, or some sort of "sold your soul" scenario.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...