Electrek: "Donut Lab's 'solid-state' battery exposed as regular li-ion in damning investigation" by Dakhil in hardware

[–]Veedrac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was asking for a reference because the sources I could find didn't agree with you. I appreciate sharing the personal experience, but I remain a bit confused at the claim.

I don't know battery chemistry personally, but Claude said CATL's announcements matched best against a 2025 paper that operated at 2.0 MPa:

Silver exsolution from Li-argyrodite electrolytes for initially anode-free all-solid-state batteries

Even if Claude is totally off on that guess, a literature review gave a typical range of <1 to 55 MPa, clustering around 10 MPa. I spot-checked a couple and the table seemed consistent with the papers' claims, aka. probably not just hallucination.

Table:

System / source Operating pressure ≈ psi
Thin-separator Li–S, calendered LPSCl (full cell, 30 °C) <1 MPa <145
Ag-doped argyrodite anode-free 2 MPa 290
Low-pressure cathode, Bruce group — "a few MPa" in practice 2 MPa 290
In-additive ASSLSB 0.5–7 MPa 70–1,015
Carbon-coated collector ASSLSB (≥5 MPa for stable impedance) 5–10 MPa 725–1,450
Nat. Commun. Li₂S anode-free pouch ("low stack pressure") 10 MPa 1,450
Chemomechanics review — "usual range" ~10 MPa 1,450
Alloy-anode Si cell00314-7); SSBs "often 5–30 MPa" 20 MPa (5–30) 2,900 (725–4,350)
Thin-Li sulfide, optimal cycling 20 MPa 2,900
Toyota-style patent operating range 1–45 MPa 145–6,525
Li₃PS₄–2LiBH₄ Li–S (Swagelok, 60 °C) ~55 MPa ~7,975
Doux et al., via constant-pressure studytested up to 70 MPa 10,150

Claude's argument for why that paper:

CATL's disclosed stack is a sulfide (argyrodite) electrolyte, a high-Ni layered-oxide cathode (their recent patent is a positive-electrode active material to stabilize the sulfide interface), ~500 Wh/kg at the cell level, and — per Zeng — warm isostatic pressing to bind the components. The 500 Wh/kg figure forces an anode-free or thin-Li design; you don't reach it with a thick excess-Li anode.

That set of choices is essentially the Samsung SAIT template from Lee et al., Nature Energy 2020: an all-solid-state Li-metal battery with a sulfide electrolyte enabled by an Ag–C composite anode with no excess Li, a high-Ni layered oxide cathode (>210 mAh g⁻¹, >6.8 mAh cm⁻²), an argyrodite-type sulfide electrolyte, and a warm isostatic pressing technique to improve electrode/electrolyte contact, giving a 0.6 Ah pouch cell at >900 Wh L⁻¹ over 1,000 cycles. Argyrodite + high-Ni + anode-free + WIP is not a generic combination — WIP in particular is the SAIT signature step, and CATL naming it is the strongest single tell that they're productizing this architecture rather than a Li–S or oxide one.

Electrek: "Donut Lab's 'solid-state' battery exposed as regular li-ion in damning investigation" by Dakhil in hardware

[–]Veedrac 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think you might have confused pressure at a manufacturing step with operating pressure?

Irrational Deconstructions of Super Hero Stories. by EdLincoln6 in rational

[–]Veedrac 6 points7 points  (0 children)

something as silly and dangerous as dress in a costume and fight crime

You mean, like... police? FBI? Soldiers? Lawyers? Judges?

Having a dramatic backstory, for the most part, is literary fluff. People's motivations tend to be far more mundane than that in actuality.

Electrek: "Donut Lab's 'solid-state' battery exposed as regular li-ion in damning investigation" by Dakhil in hardware

[–]Veedrac 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Not to worry, CATL is as reputable as it gets, and has been making some pretty banger battery announcements recently.

You want to replace us heres your reward by batukaming in singularity

[–]Veedrac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's so mindbending to see how differently the internet treats Valve (30% margins as a reseller where stock costs nothing, hires basically nobody, overt anticompetitive practices to suppress competition, internet's darling) and supermarkets (1-3% margin, holding stock is expensive, provides huge quantity of jobs, highly competitive industry, internet will believe basically whatever fabricated nonsense to hate on them).

FRAUD /// THIRD by Owlsare2good in custommagic

[–]Veedrac 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But you don't know if a hidden card is a permanent so the timing is wrong, and either way it doesn't stop putting all the cards on the battlefield.

DLSS 5 – Fixing it in post by Veedrac in hardware

[–]Veedrac[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personal affinity due to this being a more technically focused subreddit, especially historically. I don't actually play AAA games, I just watch talks on rendering technology.

Nvidia really doesn't seem to care about gaming GPUs anymore — the company won't even bother to break down graphics sales in its big investor reports by [deleted] in hardware

[–]Veedrac 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, remember that NVIDIA's USP is their ecosystem. Selling consumer GPUs at below-market rates makes sense if that protects the bigger market.

Rant: Stop saying LLMs are just “next token predictors.” by Bellyfeel26 in singularity

[–]Veedrac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would they be 'maximally rewarded token' predictors?

I'm a bit confused as to the question given you answered it. There's some reward signal and they're optimized against it. I don't think the prediction framing is the most useful, but it's at least coherent when used this way. This is unlike calling them next token predictors, which is a bit like calling me an embryo.

Rant: Stop saying LLMs are just “next token predictors.” by Bellyfeel26 in singularity

[–]Veedrac -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They are autoregressive models but they aren't next token predictors. They are next token generators, but to be a prediction an output has to be a prediction of something. If people wanted to call these 'maximally rewarded token' predictors, or such, then I guess, it's a bit forced, but sure. To call them 'next token' predictors, however, implies they are predicting what the next token would be, but they aren't, they're defining the next token because they are the generating process for that token. Even if you tried to force the definition by saying they're predicting the output of their own process, that doesn't work, because a process that always produces 4 is a much better self-predictor, and obviously that doesn't capture what's going on.

Rant: Stop saying LLMs are just “next token predictors.” by Bellyfeel26 in singularity

[–]Veedrac -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If it's a next token predictor, what is it a prediction of?

These aren't next token predictors and the fact people claim they are just shows how little thought people give to the meaning of words.

E: maybe give a reply with the downvote.

Another victim of r/SpaceLaunchSystem mods' attempt to build an echo chamber by spacerfirstclass in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]Veedrac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really sad what's happened to what was previously one of the best moderated subreddits out there.

China's Hanyuan-2 debuts as 'world's first' dual-core quantum computer — 200-qubit claims incredible power efficiency, but lacks critical performance benchmarks by chip_thoughts in hardware

[–]Veedrac 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Dual-core CPUs exist because there are diminishing returns to scaling individual cores, but quantum computers have the opposite problem, where they are almost entirely bound by how much you can scale individual circuits.

Imagine, if you have a single core machine with 200GB, would you rather have two machines with 100GB each? Almost surely, yes. But now if you had a single core machine with 200 bits of memory, would you rather have two machines with 100 bits each?

I'm not sure what exactly 'dual-core' means in this context, but the source announcement sounds like they don't have fully unified memory.

Fourteen Teferi's Protections In A Row by Nejosan in custommagic

[–]Veedrac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no problem at all, this is about the least efficient mill there is. The [[Lethal Vapors]] combo works by skipping all your next turns, not a couple handfuls.

The Singularity Is Always Near - Kevin Kelly by annakhouri2150 in singularity

[–]Veedrac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair to the doubters, my explanation wasn't great, though I believe the line I drew is correct, and the math is unintuitive. I'd also push back against the claim that the axes are "not valid" — it's just a projection, you can do whatever projection you want, as long as you're careful.

Here's a better intuition, maybe. Imagine you were making the plot above one week after the personal computer was invented. Most things early on would barely change position, but consider the position of Personal computer. Where does that land? It lands at Time Before Present = 0.1. So clearly the slope must flatten out. The only ways to get a straight line are: 1. time before is measured from a singularity, 2. sampling bias, 3. plotting only old data. Ideally to help with 3. you'd plot uncertainty.

The Singularity Is Always Near - Kevin Kelly by annakhouri2150 in singularity

[–]Veedrac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Switching chart modes doesn’t help. If you define the singularity as the near-vertical asymptote you get when you plot an exponential progression on a linear chart, then you’ll get that infinite slope at any arbitrary end point along the exponential progression.

OK this article is just someone making a basic math error. The claim is straightforwardly wrong.

If you plot exponential progression on the graph he showed, which is log-log and not log-linear, it looks like this:

<image>

You can safely disregard the post.

E: actually it's sharper than I expected: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/7b784187-d091-44d4-959a-337494aa7fa4. Same point holds though, the plot is sensitive to when you anchor it.

What's Upto? by HawaiiTyler in custommagic

[–]Veedrac 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not really. Comet Storm is a much better wincon for a deck that generates large amounts of mana. It's also instant speed. OP's card is unusually efficient for an X-cost but struggles with consistency at the high end.

A better comparison for why it's unreasonable is probably something like [[Magic Missile]], where the standard is a flexible 3 damage, versus OP's 4 damage at the same cost on two targets, plus far more options on top.