5 ms·

I recently read “To The Digital Age” (would recommend) which covers the history of the transistor and I left with a few takeaways: - New transistor architectur

by omeze 5y ago

I recently read “To The Digital Age” (would recommend) which covers the history of the transistor and I left with a few takeaways: - New transistor architectures can matter a lot (MOSFETs are why we enjoy the benefits of Moores law, BJTs wouldnt have gotten us here) - It took an entire industry decades to mobilize the tooling, manufacturing, art, and science of a single architecture (MOS) even with related tools for BJTs - Once an architecture shows promise, even giants like IBMs and its infinite funding cant fight against the tides - Even when some people know an architecture is promising, organizational politics can prevent work on it So, new architectures are always interesting but they have a huge slew technology transfer problems. But if theyre better in some way, they can find a niche and over time (decades) may turn into the next big thing. But I wouldnt hold my breath.

afandian 5y ago
Is that ISBN 9780801868092?
- omeze 5y ago
  Yea, thats the one
mwattsun 5y ago
This documentary by PBS claims William Shockley was an ego maniac who stole a lot of the credit for the transistor from his subordinates John Bardeen and Walter Brattain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4XknGqr3Bo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4XknGqr3Bo
- aksss 5y ago
  This is getting to be a trope - "what you knew is wrong, the guy who is generally given credit was actually an evil bastard who oppressed these other team members who did the lion's share of the work." I'm not sure we need sacred cows and I have no dog in a fight for credit for transistor, mouse, DNA, electricity or anything else, but the constant demand for deconstruction - "everything you know is wrong" - gets a bit wearisome.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    Welcome to postmodernism?
    - mxmilkiib 5y ago
      Isn't it more poststructural? E.g. instead of some well defined "this one person invented X" narrative structure being the way society happens, the reality is more often nuanced (and badly recorded) with multiple personal involvements with the new concept. Though I think this is more just the subject of 'history' and figuring out what exactly happened. Some people seem to get defensive when they find it the history they have been taught is challenged. Why not be wearisome about the flawed system/culture that keeps promulgating half truths?
      - graderjs 5y ago
        > Isn't it more poststructural? I'm not an expert, so it might be. Although I tend to think that postmodern is a rejection of any objective authority truth. Whereas from what I understand about poststructuralists, they still believe there's some sort of Truth you can attain, they just disagree with structuralists about how to get there. And in this case I tend to feel it's more of a post-modern "tearing down anything that seems like an authority truth" than anything else. > Though I think this is more just the subject of 'history' and figuring out what exactly happened. Agree. > Some people seem to get defensive when they find it the history they have been taught is challenged. Why not be wearisome about the flawed system/culture that keeps promulgating half truths? Agree. but I think you can replace some people with most people. And it's very understandable to feel scared and angry when someone challenges what you think is true about reality.
        aksss 5y ago
        Or simply boring. Telling a more nuanced story of credit is one thing, but continually seeking new angles to further deconstruct for its own sake starts to feel unproductive after a few rounds. It wasn’t this guy, Bob, it was this team; it wasn’t this team, it was really their moms who gave them a healthy breakfast each morning; it wasn’t really their moms, it was the vision and leadership of this guy Bob who was very troubled; it wasn’t this guy Bob but a woman and another guy on his team who were robbed of credit despite their struggles; it wasn’t the woman and the guy, the sugar industry lobby conspired to keep you from knowing the real story; damn, but this guy bob was cool; Bob was enabled by an industry supported by child labor. By unproductive I mean not adding much of substance but looking for rando new angles to make the story “interesting”. One of those angles comes with the accusation that you’ve been a willing victim of perpetuating untruth but here’s the REAL story. And I fully realize I’m old man yelling at cloud here. This is the way of popular culture story telling, but there’s some unspoken bargain in the dynamic with the audience that I feel is a bit insulting. That history need spicy new angles or interpretation to be of interest; that these layers are so often pitifully thin takes; that you stick around long enough you see it go full circle more than once. It’s a distraction from real learning.

by omeze 5y ago

afandian 5y ago

Is that ISBN 9780801868092?

omeze 5y ago
Yea, thats the one

mwattsun 5y ago

This documentary by PBS claims William Shockley was an ego maniac who stole a lot of the credit for the transistor from his subordinates John Bardeen and Walter Brattain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4XknGqr3Bo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4XknGqr3Bo

aksss 5y ago
This is getting to be a trope - "what you knew is wrong, the guy who is generally given credit was actually an evil bastard who oppressed these other team members who did the lion's share of the work." I'm not sure we need sacred cows and I have no dog in a fight for credit for transistor, mouse, DNA, electricity or anything else, but the constant demand for deconstruction - "everything you know is wrong" - gets a bit wearisome.
- graderjs 5y ago
  Welcome to postmodernism?
  - mxmilkiib 5y ago
    Isn't it more poststructural? E.g. instead of some well defined "this one person invented X" narrative structure being the way society happens, the reality is more often nuanced (and badly recorded) with multiple personal involvements with the new concept. Though I think this is more just the subject of 'history' and figuring out what exactly happened. Some people seem to get defensive when they find it the history they have been taught is challenged. Why not be wearisome about the flawed system/culture that keeps promulgating half truths?
    - graderjs 5y ago
      > Isn't it more poststructural? I'm not an expert, so it might be. Although I tend to think that postmodern is a rejection of any objective authority truth. Whereas from what I understand about poststructuralists, they still believe there's some sort of Truth you can attain, they just disagree with structuralists about how to get there. And in this case I tend to feel it's more of a post-modern "tearing down anything that seems like an authority truth" than anything else. > Though I think this is more just the subject of 'history' and figuring out what exactly happened. Agree. > Some people seem to get defensive when they find it the history they have been taught is challenged. Why not be wearisome about the flawed system/culture that keeps promulgating half truths? Agree. but I think you can replace some people with most people. And it's very understandable to feel scared and angry when someone challenges what you think is true about reality.
      - aksss 5y ago
        Or simply boring. Telling a more nuanced story of credit is one thing, but continually seeking new angles to further deconstruct for its own sake starts to feel unproductive after a few rounds. It wasn’t this guy, Bob, it was this team; it wasn’t this team, it was really their moms who gave them a healthy breakfast each morning; it wasn’t really their moms, it was the vision and leadership of this guy Bob who was very troubled; it wasn’t this guy Bob but a woman and another guy on his team who were robbed of credit despite their struggles; it wasn’t the woman and the guy, the sugar industry lobby conspired to keep you from knowing the real story; damn, but this guy bob was cool; Bob was enabled by an industry supported by child labor. By unproductive I mean not adding much of substance but looking for rando new angles to make the story “interesting”. One of those angles comes with the accusation that you’ve been a willing victim of perpetuating untruth but here’s the REAL story. And I fully realize I’m old man yelling at cloud here. This is the way of popular culture story telling, but there’s some unspoken bargain in the dynamic with the audience that I feel is a bit insulting. That history need spicy new angles or interpretation to be of interest; that these layers are so often pitifully thin takes; that you stick around long enough you see it go full circle more than once. It’s a distraction from real learning.