5 ms·
The lack of specifics about this technology plus the lack of communication led me to believe early on that it was not real. The notion that progress can only mo
by javajosh 4y ago
The lack of specifics about this technology plus the lack of communication led me to believe early on that it was not real. The notion that progress can only move forward with a large team, vs a small one, seems more like an argument you use to get more money out of a VC than a real engineering statement. What type of work requires a large team? Heck even if you're building a sky-scraper you could get started with a small team by, for example, making blue-prints.
I catch a whiff of con-artistry, and I find it deeply distasteful.
- sakras 4y agoThe Mill has on the order of 20 hours of specifics, in this YouTube playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFls3Q5bBInj_FfNLrV7gGdVtikeGoUc9 https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFls3Q5bBInj_FfNLrV7gGdVt...
- javajosh 4y agoOh yes, I remember being inspired by the idea of reversible compute. That very much appeals to the physicist in me. But it was vague even back then, and resurfacing with this nonsense about needing a big team to make any progress tells me at least they aren't serious, and at most they are actively out to scam some money out of people.
- sakras 4y agoMaybe you have this project confused with another one? This is an ordinary exposed-pipeline VLIW machine with a novel “temporal addressing” scheme rather than named registers. There’s no mention of reversible computation.
- ip26 4y agoI've always assumed it was earnest enough, but steeped deeply in the academic culture of "OK, we've done the hard part; implementation is left as an exercise for the reader"