> consumers were paying for transistors they couldn’t use
This is Econ 101 these days. It’s cheaper to design and manufacture 1 product than 2. Many many products have features that are enabled for higher paying customers, from software to kitchen appliances to cars, and much much more.
The combined product design is also subsidizing some of the costs for everyone, so be careful what you wish for. If you could use all the transistors you have, you’d be paying more either way, either because design and production costs go up, or because you’re paying for the higher end model and being the one subsidizing the existence of the high end transistors other people don’t use.
> it is in theory possible to emulate FP64 using FP32 operations
I’d say it’s better than theory, you can definitely use float2 pairs of fp32 floats to emulate higher precision. Quad precision using too, using float4. Here’s the code: https://andrewthall.com/papers/df64_qf128.pdf
Also note it’s easy to emulate fp64 using entirely integer instructions. (As a fun exercise, I attempted both doubles and quads in GLSL: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/flKSzG)
While it’s relatively easy to do, these approaches are a lot slower than fp64 hardware. My code is not optimized, not ieee compliant, and not bug-free, but the emulated doubles are at least an order of magnitude slower than fp32, and the quads are two order of magnitude slower. I don’t think Andrew Thall’s df64 can achieve a 1:4 float to double perf ratio either.
And not sure, but I don’t think CUDA SMs are vector processors per se, and not because of the fixed warp size, but more broadly because of the design & instruction set. I could be completely wrong though, and Tensor Cores totally might count as vector processors.
What is easy to do is to emulate FP128 with FP64 (double-double) or even FP256 with FP64.
The reason is that the exponent range of FP64 is typically sufficient to avoid overflows and underflows in most applications.
On the other hand, the exponent range of FP32 is insufficient for most scientific-technical computing.
For an adequate exponent range, you must use either three FP32 per FP64, or two FP32 and an integer. In this case the emulation becomes significantly slower than the simplistic double-single emulation.
With the simpler double-single emulation, you cannot expect to just plug it in most engineering applications, e.g. SPICE for electronic circuit simulation, and see that the application works. Some applications could be painstakingly modified to work with such an implementation, but that is not normally an option.
So to be interchangeable with the use of standard FP64 you really must also emulate the exponent range, at the price of much slower emulation.
I did this at some point in the past, but today it makes no sense in comparison with the available alternatives.
Today, the best FP64 performance per dollar by far, is achieved with Ryzen 9950X or Ryzen 9900X, in combination with Inter Battlemage B580 GPUs.
When money does not matter, you can use AMD Epyc in combination with AMD "datacenter" GPUs, which would achieve much better performance per watt, but the performance per dollar would be abysmally low.
Oh yes I forgot to mention it, you’re absolutely right, Thall’s method for df64 and qf128 gives you double/quad precision mantissa with single-precision exponent ranges, and the paper is clear about that.
FWIW, my own example (emulating doubles/quads with ints) gives the full exponent range with no wasted bits since I’m just emulating IEEE format directly.
Of course there are also bignum libraries that can do arbitrary precision. I guess one of the things I meant to convey but didn’t say directly is that using double precision isn’t export controlled, as one might interpret the top of thi thread, but a certain level of fp64 performance might be.
I second the vote for orbit cam! Add double-click to choose the orbit point, and add a zoom control that is proportional to distance to orbit point, and it suddenly gets insanely easy to navigate the scene and find good views. It’s too hard to control using translate and look-around angles.
The demos I tried so far have translate and not pan, and those are fully 3d…
This argument doesn’t make sense to me. Generally speaking, having more registers does not result in more spilling, it results in less spilling. Obviously, if you have 100 registers here, there’s no spilling at all. And think through what happens in your example with a 4 register machine or a 1 register machine, all values must spill. You can demonstrate the general principle yourself by limiting the number of registers and then increasing it using the ffixed-reg flags. In CUDA you can set your register count and basically watch the number of spills go up by one every time you take away a register and go down by one every time you add a register.
> Obviously, if you have 100 registers here, there’s no spilling at all.
No, you still need to save/spill all the registers that you use: the call-invariant ones need to be saved at the beginning of the function, the call-clobbered at an inner call site. If your function is a leaf function, only then you can get away with using only call-clobbered registers and not preserving them.
Okay, I see what you’re saying. I was assuming the compiler or programmer knows the call graph, and you’re assuming it’s a function call in the middle of a potentially large call stack with no knowledge of its surroundings. Your assumption is for sure safer and more common for a compiler compiling a function that’s not a leaf and not inlined.
So I can see why it might seem at first glance like having more registers would mean more spilling for a single function. But if your requirement is that you must save/spill all registers used, then isn’t the amount of spilling purely dependent on the function’s number of simultaneous live variables, and not on the number of hardware registers at all? If your machine has fewer general purpose registers than live state footprint in your function, then the amount of function-internal spill and/or remat must go up. You have to spill your own live state in order to compute other necessary live state during the course of the function. More hardware registers means less function-internal spill, but I think under your function call assumptions, the amount of spill has to be constant.
For sure this topic makes it clear why inlining is so important and heavily used, and once you start talking about inlining, having more registers available definitely reduces spill, and this happens often in practice, right? Leaf calls and inlined call stacks and specialization are all a thing that more regs help, so I would expect perf to get better with more registers.
> assuming it’s a function call in the middle of a potentially large call stack with no knowledge of its surroundings.
Most of the decision logic/business logic lives exactly in functions like this, so while I wouldn't claim that 90% of all of the code is like that... it's probably at least 50% or so.
> then isn’t the amount of spilling purely dependent on the function’s number of simultaneous live variables
Yes, and this ties precisely back to my argument: whether or not larger number of GPRs "helps" depends on what kind of code is usually being executed. And most of the code, empirically, doesn't have all that many scalar variables alive simultaneously. And the code that does benefit from more registers (huge unrolled/interleaved computational loops with no function calls or with calls only to intrinsics/inlinable thin wrappers of intrinsics) would benefit even more from using SIMD or even better, being off-loaded to a GPU or the like.
I actually once designed a 256-register fantasy CPU but after playing with it for a while I realised that about 200 of its registers go completely unused, and that's with globals liberally pinned to registers. Which, I guess, explains why Knuth used some idiosyncratic windowing system for his MMIX.
It took me a minute, but yes I completely agree that whether more GPRs helps depends on the code & compiler, and that there’s plenty of code you can’t inline. Re: MMIX Yes! Theoretically it would help if the hardware could dynamically alias registers, and automatically handle spilling when the RF is full. I have heard such a thing physically exists and has been tried, but I don’t know which chip/arch it is (maybe AMD?) nor how well it works. I would bet that it can’t be super efficient with registers, and maybe the complexity doesn’t pay off in practice because it thwarts and undermines inlining.
> Copyright holders worry about how to exercise control over the use of "their" creative material for training models; but that begs the question of whether copyright holders ever had, or should have, a right to any such control. If a human can read a book and learn from it, and then write their own books, why shouldn't a computer?
There’s a small amount of irony in an article that’s discussing copyright, and the invisible but critical context of information, then dismissing the context of copying when it comes to copyright, as well as confusing what copyright protects. I’m certain the author knows that copyright does not protect ideas, it does not protect “colour”, it deliberately only protects the “bits”. In US copyright law this is called the “fixation” of a work. The Berne Convention uses similar terminology: “works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form.”
AI’s “learning” has a different colour than human learning. This has been debated at length on HN and elsewhere, and in the courts, but it’s definitely wildly misleading to compare ChatGPT training on all books ever written and then being distributed (for a profit) to everyone, to one human reading one book and learning something from it.
More interesting to me is the "derivative work" concept. If a human sits down with a novel, reads it cover to cover, then writes their own novel which broadly has the same characters following the same plot in the same setting, but with slight differences in names and word choice, is that new work a derivative of the first for copyright purposes? What if they do the same thing for code? What if an AI does either or both of those?
IP courts will have some truly novel questions before them this century.
Copyright does not cover ideas, period. If you write your own novel and use your own word choices, even if you copy the plot structure exactly and the same character names while writing a new book, it’s not even considered a derivative work under the law, it’s a new work. Copyright covers copying the fixed work itself. You aren’t in violation of copyright unless you copy the words themselves.
The flip side is that this is why the article’s discussion about randomness and monkeys on typewriters is irrelevant to copyright law. It’s a copyright violation to produce the same “fixation” no matter how you do it. If you generated a random sequence of characters, and it happened to match a NYT best selling book, you violate the book author’s copyrights, and claiming it was random isn’t a viable defense. Intent to copy can make it worse, but lack of intent does not absolve. There is precedent for people coming up independently with the same songs and one being successfully sued.
Do note that there are other laws that might cover plagiarism of ideas, trademarks, code, etc., copyright isn’t the only consideration, but copyright seems to be often misunderstood. We definitely have some novel questions because of the scale of AI’s copying, the nature of training and the provenance of the training data, and because of AI’s growing ability to skirt copyright law while actually copying.
That's not really true. Copyright protects named characters if they are sufficiently distinctive, though there's nothing to stop you from creating an identical character with a different name.
It is really true, but yes there are some specific exceptions. In general: “Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, methods, facts, or systems.” https://www.copyright.gov/engage/writers/
You’re right that in certain limited circumstances, copyright will protect fictional characters. To protect a character, the character must be “well delineated”, and this has proven to be a pretty high bar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...
You still seem to be ignoring derived works a bit. For example, if I downloaded a copy of "Harry Potter" and replaced every "Harry" with "Harvey" and every "Potter" with "Plumber", my new book "Harvey Plumber" would be a derived work from the original, meaning I would not have the right to sell or distribute the new work, even though it wouldn't be exactly the same.
What if I did something similar, but rather than a simple Ctrl-H replacement, I asked an LLM to rewrite each paragraph in different words? What if I did the rewrite myself, by hand? Is there a difference? If so, why? If not, why not?
The right to make derived works is covered by copyright law. It’s not legal to play madlibs on something and call it a derived work unless you already have the copyrights. If the edit distance is too small, proving infringement isn’t hard. If you change more words, you’re still in violation of copyright on originality grounds, but it might be harder for someone to prove it.
The LLMs question is more complicated. If you ask AI for a rewrite of a specific work, that’s infringement on grounds of originality. It’s also infringement when you don’t have the rights to the work that you feed to the LLM. This is part of the debate over AI training, and is covered in the Copyright Office’s draft on generative AI under the Prima Facie Infringement section https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
AI companies aren’t arguing over derived works, they are trying to get approval to classify AI training as Fair Use, because they know they are infringing existing copyright law. The Copyright Office might end up allowing it and changing the law.
Correct. The proposal is to not be able to use your posts to determine which ads to show. But showing you ads in Spanish because you’re in southern Florida or Puerto Rico would be acceptable.
Such a law will probably allow targeting based on the browser's language (browsers already send a "Accept-Language" field, doxing you with every single http request), or whatever language you have configured a website/app interface to be shown in.
But not guess a language based on the content of posts.
In this hypothetical scenario, why are you assuming in-app advertising would be any different from browser advertising? Re-read @phire’s comment above; the proposal was to get rid of targeted advertising that uses your personal data to make advertising decisions. I assumed that would apply to all advertising channels, including both web and in-app ads, otherwise you’d be right and it probably wouldn’t work.
Why are you assuming that the hosting locale is even relevant? I’m not going to ban anything, but if @phire’s idea was law, it would probably ban anything advertiser from choosing which ads to show you based on your personal data. It’s irrelevant where the ads or site is hosted, I assume. If ads from foreign countries don’t target individuals, their ads would be legal. If ads from foreign countries, or from the US, use your posts to choose which ads they think you’ll engage with, that wouldn’t be allowed under @phire’s proposal. Is @phire’s suggestion confusing?
I don’t know, maybe by not showing the targeted ads? By putting legal liability on the US based advertising channels & distributors? By making it illegal for US sites to share an individual’s tracking and history information with advertisers? I can imagine a lot of ways this might work.
Again, why are foreign sites relevant, and why does this idea seem hard to grasp?
Because the internet exists outside of the US and you can get to foreign sites on the Internet?
Do we tell US companies they can’t buy advertising on foreign sites and that those foreign sites can’t be accesed from the US?
We have an existence proof of what happens when a government tries to restrict what people can see on the internet. I live in one of the states that require porn sites to validate ID. If you add all of the sites that ignored the law completely and all of the sites that you can access via a VPN, the number you get is 100%
How has the GDPR changed the practices of any company outside of the EU? If you think the GDPR and cookie banners on every website is an argument for more government regulating, is that the argument you really want to be making?
Nearly all large U.S. corporations adhere to the data retention rules and right to delete GDPR rules for EU citizens because they also operate in the EU, and nearly all of them proactively adhere to the GDPR for US citizens just to keep things simpler. Fixating on cookie banners is naive. Here’s just one example: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/governance/
Isn’t hearing some Spanish from time to time expected in Miami, whether you speak it or not? I expect to hear Spanish and I live nowhere near a coast… And you prefer that advertisers read through your posts/emails/history/everything to make ads targeted at you? If you don’t care about the risks of targeted advertising, and don’t agree with the EU’s decision to ban manipulative behavior, then the proposal we’re discussing maybe isn’t for you. But at least consider that having an ads language setting is not ruled out by this idea, so if you can’t stand Spanish, then you can have your ads in English without the advertisers reading all your posts.
I know some Spanish. But if I were an advertiser, I wouldn’t want to waste my money on ad impressions on people who couldn’t understand a word I was saying. I also as a business person who targets Spanish speaking people - like you know immigration assistance or when mask thugs think I’m here illegally when I was born in Puerto Rico (hypothetically).
So what if I have a website based out of the counter and accept advertisements? Are you going to tell ISPs to block those foreign websites?
Let me tell you a little story. The state I live in just passed a law requiring all porn sites to verify age. Guess how many porn sites not based in the US ignored the law entirely? Guess how many who did folks the law can be viewed over a VPN? If you guessed “lesser than 100% between both, you would be wrong.
Obviously sites not based in the US don’t have to follow US laws. And obviously using a VPN circumvents local laws. Again, I’m not going to do any of this, but you answered your own question: one way the US could enforce this would be to require ISPs to block targeted advertising, regardless of where the originating site is located.
No, that’s a straw man. For the fifth(?) time, whether it’s foreign or not is irrelevant, and only you suggested they’re evil. The criteria proposed was whether it’s targeted based on personal content or not, and I’m not alone in not liking where we already are in terms of privacy. Are you suggesting that we need to protect foreign advertiser’s rights to your personal content so they can target ads personalized for you? Why? Are you a foreign advertiser?
People accessing sites in other countries via VPN proves absolutely nothing. We are talking about what would happen on US based sites like Google and YouTube, sites that don’t and can’t ignore US law.
Promotion of anything at all is advertising, with or without compensation. The word advertising is pretty well defined, and the dictionary definitions don’t usually mention compensation, e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertise.
An example I’m sure you would consider advertising - consider Google advertising Google Fiber in Google search results, or Facebook advertising business services on Facebook, or Apple, Netflix, Cinemark advertising their own shows & products in their own channels. You’ve seen lots of these, I’m sure you would consider them ads, but it’s not the compensation that makes them ads.
Yes, but if we're talking about incentives and "primordial domino tiles" then compensated advertising is what createa the incentives for the whole attention economy and addictive design in the first place.
Feel free to keep doing "pro-bono" advertising, but shareholders definitely wouldn't.
>compensated advertising is what createa the incentives for the whole attention economy
Why would you not want to keep people engaged and even "addicted" in order to keep them as subscribers and make them upgrade to more expensive subscriptions?
- Gambling while rarely subscription based is usually paid for directly rather than ad funded.
- Newspaper subscriptions are no less addictive for news junkies than purely ad funded newspapers.
- I watch a lot of Youtube, far more than I used to before I started paying for the subscription.
- Netflix and in the olden days TV.
I'm not entirely sure what "insidiously addictive" actually means. I do sometimes scroll through some TikTok vids. I don't find it particularly addictive compared to, say, Hacker News.
You're right that modern video games and Netflix are a good examples of things that are non-ad-based, but are insidiously addictive. I used "insidiously addictive" to mean something which is engineered specifically to maximize addictive potential, and is not addictive purely on its own merits.
An example of a game development pattern that I would consider "merely addictive" would be a game developer trying to make their game as fun as possible. Does maximizing fun inherently make a game more likely to be addictive? Of course, but addiction was not the criteria being optimized for.
An example of an insidiously addictive video game would be one where the developers specifically created features in the hopes that they would create a dependency with the product to drive subscriptions or sales. It's at least partially about the level of cynicism with which the product is being developed.
A more stark example would be a fast food restaurant refining their recipe to make it more delicious versus one adding drugs to the food to make people addicted.
Newspapers and Youtube are both examples of services that are engineered to be ad-based but have a subscription option, so they're most likely still driven by the same attention-seeking incentives.
Corporations want to sell as much as possible to make as much money as possible.
Whenever the frequency, quantity or intensity of use drives up earnings, you are bound to get the same result: More "addictive" designs are better for earnings than less "addictive" designs. The difference (if any) between addictive because fun and addictive by design is irrelevant for this outcome.
What I will grant you is that the link can be more direct with ad funding. If a newspaper publisher knows that some very loyal subscribers only ever read 5 articles every morning, making that particular group read 30 articles would not drive up earnings.
But I think on average across all readers the link between reading more and higher earnings would still exist and hence the incentive to make the product more "addictive".
The "problem" (for corporations) is that the process of signing up for a subscription is itself a major obstacle in user flow and can serve as a point where users "wake up" and realize what they are doing.
Sure, you can design your pages after the sign up to be addictive, but that wouldn't actually help you to get more subscribers - so there is not a lot of economic rationale to do so (unless you have other mechanisms to "monetize" already signed up users, such as lootboxes or in-app purchases)
In contrast, if you can use advertising to monetize non-subscribed users, you can sidestep that entire obstacle altogether. That's why there is a lot of economic incentive to design the free part of services to be addictive, as long as there is advertising.
I don't get it. Why do you think that it doesn't make sense for subscription based services to be as addictive as possible so that users don't churn?
Second, I don't believe that forms of "addiction" that have existed for centuries can be beaten by small changes to business models. See my other comment for more detail on this:
Also, what would you do about the fact that ad funded services for lower earners are effectively subsidised by higher earners? If you ban the subsidised services, you are causing a massive regressive change to the availability of information and entertainment.
> If a newspaper publisher knows that some very loyal subscribers only ever read 5 articles every morning, making that particular group read 30 articles would not drive up earnings.
I think it's hard to say if that's true. A consumer might be willing to pay more for a service they use a lot rather than a little.
What I do know is that I can see plainly that advertising-driven services are among the worse offenders for creating addictive products and other revenue models generally provide healthier incentives to direct development.
The EU's general approach here is probably better than banning advertising since it diagnoses a clear problem, but leaves it open for regulators and companies to address it.
>What I do know is that I can see plainly that advertising-driven services are among the worse offenders for creating addictive products and other revenue models generally provide healthier incentives to direct development.
I can see plainly that this is not the case and I have given you a number of examples. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
>The EU's general approach here is probably better than banning advertising since it diagnoses a clear problem
I also prefer this to a ban because a ban would be incredibly destructive and regressive while this regulation will be merely ineffective.
This sort of "addiction" has caused moral panics for centuries starting with reading addiction in the 18th century. During my own lifetime we had this sort of hysteria about comic books, video games, TV and now social media.
I don't deny that it can cause problems. I remember a time as a kid when I was reading so much all day every day that I actually got depressed and lonely when I was forced to interact with the real world. I wanted to live in the story I was reading.
I also used to procrastinate a lot here on Hacker News. There's even a setting you can enable called "noprocrast" to stop your addiction if you want.
My wife told me she had trouble staying awake at school for years because she was reading novels into the early morning.
Some people believe that what we are currently seeing is something new that wouldn't exist without ad funded media companies deliberately causing it. My experience tells me that this is not true.
But to answer your question. I have no solution. If anything, the solutions may exist on an individual level - lifestyle, social connections, etc. Banning this or that medium or various kinds of advertising tricks will have no effect whatsoever.
I don’t understand what you mean about shareholders and pro-bono, can you elaborate? Apple advertises Apple products on Apple channels, and Apple’s shareholders love that, and it’s not “pro-bono”.
I don’t think you have the incentives correctly summarized. The incentive of businesses like Google, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram are to make money, and the only way they’ve figured out how to do that at scale is advertising. None of those sites had ads when they started.
Why? I completely disagree, they are the same as any other ads. But you’re still not seeing the big picture. If you ban advertising compensation, suddenly uncompensated will become the entire problem and the only category. That’s the point.
Surely you're just being pedantic by pointing out that platforms can advertise themselves without paying money to themselves. If those same advertisements were on another platform they would be compensated ads.
And? Those ads aren’t on other platforms, and they won’t go away if you ban compensated advertising. Surely you’re just being completely naive if you think banning “compensated” advertising would change the advertising rather than the compensation mechanisms.
You can try to stop the payments, but you won’t stop the ads. I’m talking about the same reasons billionaires pay far lower tax rates than you and I. When that much money is on the line, they will find (or make) a legal way. (Anyway, it’s also time to come back from outer space; corporations own the laws and the advertising channels. Our economy, for better or worse, currently depends on advertising. Compensated advertising will never be banned.)
The hypothetical you’re talking about does not stop today’s uncompensated for-profit advertising at all, and there is a lot of that. It also would only stop direct payments to content channels from a second party in exchange for advertising. That wouldn’t stop indirect marketing/advertising, nor indirect compensation. Furthermore, content distributors could offer service bundles where advertisers pay for other business services, and ads become a free add-on from a legal accounting perspective. Similarly, advertisers can offer other services, and channels can gift air-time to businesses. Channels could “sponsor” or “endorse” products they “like” without an attached financial transaction.
It just would not be that hard to legally sever advertising from compensation, so if you aren’t banning all advertising including the uncompensated kind, then advertising will happen. And banning all advertising is even more of a non-starter than trying to somehow block payments.
I don’t agree with that. I’m saying that banning advertising payments will obviously have unintended consequences and fail to achieve the actual desired goal. That happens with poorly conceived regulations all the time. I’m also suggesting that not enough people agree with your desire to ban advertising, and there isn’t a clear enough benefit to society, for this particular regulation to pass. You have a Chesterton’s Fence problem if you don’t see the reasons why advertising is so completely pervasive. You have to acknowledge that first and then propose something viable and realistic that can replace it.
For Facebook alone, it’s less than 30x. The “family” in “Family Daily Active People” is also referring to “Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, and other services.”
Baby steps. Everyone deserves it, but getting there in one step is politically impossible almost everywhere in the world. Nobody’s saying only the arts deserve subsidies. It’s just easier to justify. But if we want everyone to have basic income, we need to applaud whenever it happens, even if it’s a small subset, and argue they deserve it and that we should have more of it. Complaining about the unfairness of artists being subsidized demonstrates and adds to the political difficultly. If we accept that it’s unfair for a subset, then we might never get basic income since the rich don’t need it and many don’t want it.
Why do you say that? Isn’t the fact that it got approved evidence that it was easier to justify subsidies for artists?
I don’t know what you mean at all, why is this “so polarizing”? A lot of the art world already runs on subsidies, and it’s well known that it’s more difficult to make a living as an artist than your examples of jobs that come with steady pay, even if it’s low. Solo artists don’t get any steady income at all, and many have to take other jobs in order to support their art work. The general public where I live (in the US) is absolutely more willing to fund the arts than to fund generally low paying steady-income jobs, especially steady-income jobs that are already funded via taxes like teachers and firefighters. This is why I claim it’s easier to justify subsidizing artists. What is the reason you claim it’s not easier to justify, and where is the evidence your claim is true?
Good question. The public consultation was 97% in favour, although half the respondents were receiving the pilot payment at the time.
Following the announcement of Budget 2026 last October, I think this expenditure came into sharp focus, as the budget was considered to be almost hostile to workers and families, and anecdotally I think it has become more controversial since.
There definitely isn't overwhelming consensus the above figure suggests, as the public consultations always heavily lean towards interested parties (I didn't learn of the consultation until after it closed), but any topic that sharply divides opinion can be polarising.
The cohorts at each pole don't have to be equal size, and for now, there are definitely more in favour than against in Ireland.
Far more in favor than against completely supports my speculation that basic income for artists is easier to publicly justify than basic income for all. You argued sharply with that, but have so far provided only evidence in support of what I said. I would love to hear why, exactly, you claimed this issue would somehow poison the idea of basic income, and why you don’t agree with the idea of getting it approved for small groups in stages.
This is Econ 101 these days. It’s cheaper to design and manufacture 1 product than 2. Many many products have features that are enabled for higher paying customers, from software to kitchen appliances to cars, and much much more.
The combined product design is also subsidizing some of the costs for everyone, so be careful what you wish for. If you could use all the transistors you have, you’d be paying more either way, either because design and production costs go up, or because you’re paying for the higher end model and being the one subsidizing the existence of the high end transistors other people don’t use.
reply