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 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...