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, @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...