Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 9:32:49 +0000, David Brown wrote:

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

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.

We have all the technology we need to build a 2× Webb and to launch
it into space, or we will by the time it can be built.

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.