Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 07/10/2024 03:34, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 0:39:15 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
 

mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:47:08 +0000, David Brown wrote:
>

On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote:

Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes
money promoting physics to people on YouTube.
>
https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt
>

>
Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of
her videos before.  Her points here are not new or contentious - there
is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here.  We
have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and
fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is unavoidably
minimal.  Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide
corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models

>
Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to
enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into
space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it-
check, telemetry and command-check.

>
An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted
that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses
thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch.

 I was counting on Starship in the above.
I was only complaining about the "can't" part.
Every piece of engineering is go--as long as someone will pay for it.

No, the engineering is not remotely close to "go" for these things (the ridiculously large particle accelerators), even if there were an unlimited supply of money.
There are, however, many other types of devices and experiments that would be useful for physics research which /are/ possible from the engineering viewpoint, but lack the funding.