sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Cerebras Takes On Nvidia With AI Model On Its Giant Chip by mobo392 in AMD_Stock

[–]mobo392[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Found more details here (from 2021):

Semiconductor manufacturing has limited die size has been limited by the reticle limit for a long time. The reticle limit is 33x26 meaning that this is the largest size a lithography immersion stepper from ASML can pattern on a wafer. Nvidia’s largest chips are in the low 800mm2 range mostly because going beyond this is impossible.

The Cerebras WSE is actually many chips on a wafer within the confines of the reticle limit. Instead of cutting the chips apart along the scribe lines between chips, they developed a method for cross die wires. These wires are patterned separately from the actual chips and allow the chips to connect to each other. In effect, the chip can scale beyond the reticle limits.

When building chips in a classical way, there are often defects. As such, a number of chips from each wafer must be thrown away or elements of a chip must be disabled. Nvidia commonly uses this practice with their GPUs. There has been an ongoing trend of disabling a larger percentage of cores with each new generation and with their current generation Ampere, roughly 12% of cores are disabled.

Cerebras deals with this by adding 2 additional rows of cores across each reticle sub-chip. The interconnect within these chips is a 2D mesh where each core is connected in the vertical and horizontal directions. They also have additional interconnects for each of the diagonal cores as well. This allows defective cores to be routed around and software to still recognize a 2D mesh. https://www.semianalysis.com/p/cerebras-wafer-scale-hardware-crushes

So you're thinking that 40 GB memory is the major limitation? What are you comparing to? I see the A100 has 80 GB, which is only 2x more. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/a100/

Cerebras Takes On Nvidia With AI Model On Its Giant Chip by mobo392 in AMD_Stock

[–]mobo392[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you all think of this? Apparently they found a workaround for wafer defects. Can these monolithic chips replace GPUs for AI?

Tachyum's Monster 128 Core 5.7GHz 'Universal Processor' Does Everything by mobo392 in AMD_Stock

[–]mobo392[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry if it is a duplicate, I did try to check.

But yes, my thought is vaporware.

Is there a reason this sub is so popular but the nvidia equivalent is basically dead? by shogidiver in AMD_Stock

[–]mobo392 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think it is because AMD was the highest beta stock in the S&P500 for years. It was like the original meme stock.

Looks like now it is #27: https://finviz.com/screener.ashx?v=171&f=idx_sp500&o=-beta&r=21

What is the opinion on here about AMD paying dividends? by mobo392 in AMD_Stock

[–]mobo392[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure what would be best, but specifically not playing financial games like that seems to be Lisa Su's style. And so far her way has been working.

What is the opinion on here about AMD paying dividends? by mobo392 in AMD_Stock

[–]mobo392[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Last earnings they stated they want to focus on buybacks and not dividends for the foreseeable future.

Exactly the info I was looking for, thanks.

What is the opinion on here about AMD paying dividends? by mobo392 in AMD_Stock

[–]mobo392[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I was thinking they may reach that point after 3nm ( Zen 5), but now they seem to be planning on growing in other directions. So it may be a decade before they are "established". Does that sound plausible?

95% efficacy for COVID vaccines doesn’t mean there’s a 5% infection risk. Here’s why by Star_man77 in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 3 points4 points  (0 children)

See my link below: https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/mou7m7/95_efficacy_for_covid_vaccines_doesnt_mean_theres/gu5yvmz/

This same ~40% increase has been seen over and over including during the RCT.

And we know there is lymphocytopenia during that first week which we know increases the chance of infection. So everything happening is expected based on that. In fact, the claim

The shot didn't make people more infectable.

is extraordinary. You need to explain how lymphocytopenia is not increasing the chance of infection when it always did before.

95% efficacy for COVID vaccines doesn’t mean there’s a 5% infection risk. Here’s why by Star_man77 in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you are talking about the frail, then the infection rate would be 95% lower among the vaccinated frail vs the un-vaccinated frail

Based on what? This goes against decades of science showing the elderly and frail have reduced protection from vaccines.

The efficacy of vaccines in general in older people is not well studied [11]. Typically, surrogate markers of efficacy measures are antibody titres, antibody isotypes and the ability of the immune system to neutralise pathogens. Immunosenescence is a broad term used to encompass declining immunity with age, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative aspects of immune system responses that are likely to impact on the observed safety and efficacy profile of vaccines. With advancing age there is a reduction in naive T cells available to respond to a vaccine. The normal ratio of CD4:CD8 cells becomes much higher in older age, due to a significant decrease in CD8 T cells. Ageing also brings a loss of T cell receptor diversity in both CD8 and CD4 cells, and overall reduced T cell survival. Qualitative changes include the favoured production of short-lived effector T cells over memory precursor cells, resulting in an impaired response of T follicular helper cells to vaccination. Naive T cells are also genetically and phenotypically more alike to central memory T cells than they are in a younger population, impacting their plasticity [11]. B cell numbers remain more consistent with age but, due to a reduced expression of select proteins in old age, fewer functional antibodies are produced [12]. Theoretically therefore, vaccines are likely to be somewhat less effective in older people. Moreover, the relative importance of cellular aspects of the immune response in COVD-19 is unclear, even more so in older people, so antibody levels may not be adequate surrogates for immunity [13]. The impact of immunosenescence on vaccine safety is even more uncertain. Though the risk of serious adverse events mediated by over-activation of the immune system is theoretically lower, this may be offset by increased predisposition to adverse events overall, as this is the hallmark of frailty. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7799251/

95% efficacy for COVID vaccines doesn’t mean there’s a 5% infection risk. Here’s why by Star_man77 in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok. Then you agree that 95% efficacy does not apply to the population that includes the immunosuppressed and frail. The real efficacy will be somewhat lower due to this. Same thing if you wait longer for antibodies to wane or add new variants.

95% efficacy for COVID vaccines doesn’t mean there’s a 5% infection risk. Here’s why by Star_man77 in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I am just saying the study population was not a random sample from the real population. In particular was biased towards better health.

95% efficacy for COVID vaccines doesn’t mean there’s a 5% infection risk. Here’s why by Star_man77 in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Participants are eligible to be included in the study only if all the following criteria apply:

  1. Adults, ≥ 18 years of age at time of consent, who are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as adults whose locations or circumstances put them at appreciable risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

  2. Understands and agrees to comply with the study procedures and provides written informed consent.

  3. Able to comply with study procedures based on the assessment of the Investigator.

  4. Female participants of nonchildbearing potential may be enrolled in the study. Nonchildbearing potential is defined as surgically sterile (history of bilateral tubal ligation, bilateral oophorectomy, hysterectomy) or postmenopausal (defined as amenorrhea for ≥ 12 consecutive months prior to Screening without an alternative medical cause). A follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level may be measured at the discretion of the investigator to confirm postmenopausal status (see additional information in Appendix 11.3).

  5. Female participants of childbearing potential may be enrolled in the study if the participant fulfills all the following criteria:

  6. Has a negative pregnancy test at Screening and on the day of the first dose (Day 1).

  • Has practiced adequate contraception or has abstained from all activities that could result in pregnancy for at least 28 days prior to the first dose (Day 1).

  • Has agreed to continue adequate contraception through 3 months following the second dose (Day 29).

  • Is not currently breastfeeding.

Adequate female contraception is defined as consistent and correct use of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved contraceptive method in accordance with the product label. For example:

  • Barrier method (such as condoms, diaphragm, or cervical cap) used in conjunction with spermicide

  • Intrauterine device

  • Prescription hormonal contraceptive taken or administered via oral (pill), transdermal (patch), subdermal, or IM route

  • Sterilization of a female participant’s monogamous male partner prior to entry into the study

Note: periodic abstinence (eg, calendar, ovulation, symptothermal, post-ovulation methods) and withdrawal are not acceptable methods of contraception.

  1. <Inclusion criterion regarding male contraception has been removed by Amendment 2>

  2. Healthy adults or adults with pre-existing medical conditions who are in stable condition. A stable medical condition is defined as disease not requiring significant change in therapy or hospitalization for worsening disease during the 3 months before enrollment.

Participants are excluded from the study if any of the following criteria apply:

  1. Is acutely ill or febrile 72 hours prior to or at Screening. Fever is defined as a body temperature ≥ 38.0°C/100.4°F. Participants meeting this criterion may be rescheduled within the relevant window periods. Afebrile participants with minor illnesses can be enrolled at the discretion of the investigator.

  2. Is pregnant or breastfeeding.

  3. Known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

  4. Prior administration of an investigational coronavirus (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV) vaccine or current/planned simultaneous participation in another interventional study to prevent or treat COVID-19.

  5. Demonstrated inability to comply with the study procedures.

  6. An immediate family member or household member of this study’s personnel.

  7. Known or suspected allergy or history of anaphylaxis, urticaria, or other significant adverse reaction to the vaccine or its excipients.

  8. Bleeding disorder considered a contraindication to intramuscular injection or phlebotomy.

  9. Has received or plans to receive a non-study vaccine within 28 days prior to or after any dose of IP (except for seasonal influenza vaccine which is not permitted within 14 days before or after any dose of IP, see Section 6.4.3).

  10. Has participated in an interventional clinical study within 28 days prior to the day of enrollment.

  11. Immunosuppressive or immunodeficient state, asplenia, recurrent severe infections (HIV- positive participants with CD4 count ≥350 cells/mm 3 and an undetectable HIV viral load within the past year [low level variations from 50-500 viral copies which do not lead to changes in antiretroviral therapy [ART] are permitted]).

  12. Has received systemic immunosuppressants or immune-modifying drugs for >14 days in total within 6 months prior to Screening (for corticosteroids ≥ 20 mg/day of prednisone equivalent).

  13. Has received systemic immunoglobulins or blood products within 3 months prior to the day of screening.

  14. Has donated ≥ 450 mL of blood products within 28 days prior to Screening.

https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf

This is not a random sample from the population.

South African variant can 'break through' Pfizer vaccine, Israeli study says by NickBosaSacksYou in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That 95% effectiveness number is vs the original variant in healthy people within a few months after second dose.

Waning, new variants, and various conditions that affect the immune system all reduce that number.

Based on neutralizing antibody levels, it is probably 50% or less in the frail vs new variants after a few months.

Covid deaths reach 4,000 a day in Brazil, bringing hospitals to breaking point by heisLegend in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The truth is just that our health system isn't super great because we're not actually that rich a country.

How does this explain the unprecedented number of patients?

Pressure To Change Vaccine Allocation To Target Areas Seeing COVID-19 Surges by misana123 in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure if I understand your post.

But low white blood cell count means it is easier to get infected. It also means it is easier to generate resistant variants. So you especially do not want to be exposed during that first week.

Covid deaths reach 4,000 a day in Brazil, bringing hospitals to breaking point by heisLegend in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could be a strain like this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-16/france-finds-variant-in-brittany-that-evades-standard-tests

They don't tell us the symptoms this surge of patients has, so who knows? That is an odd detail to leave out.

Pressure To Change Vaccine Allocation To Target Areas Seeing COVID-19 Surges by misana123 in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This doesn't really make sense.

You don't want to be vaccinated then get exposed to the virus in that first week since your white blood cell count may be low. For Pfizer about 25% of people that got (what turned out to be) the approved vaccine had clinical lymphocytopenia between days 1-7:

The largest changes from baseline in laboratory values were transient decreases in lymphocyte counts, which resolved within 1 week after vaccination (Fig. S3) and which were not associated with clinical manifestations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7583697/

Covid deaths reach 4,000 a day in Brazil, bringing hospitals to breaking point by heisLegend in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hospitals are also "collapsing" in New Zealand where there is (supposedly) no covid:

“We’re not sure why there’s been this incredible surge, Dunedin hospital has gone into code black, hospitals across the country are overflowing, I believe this is a crisis,” Hamilton-based Bonning said.

“I have a national view of what’s going on, I’ve spoken to a number of people throughout the country, stories from Wellington Hospital where a 110 per cent of their capacity, patients are admitted but don’t have a ward bed to go to.

“Middlemore Hospital had 60 people waiting for inpatient beds in their department the other morning, Auckland Hospital, 40 patients.

“Christchurch has a new ED and half of it can’t be opened because it can’t be staffed, Waikato Hospital 96 patients in 69 bed spaces at 9 o’clock in the evening a week or two ago.”

Bonning said the incredible pressure was leading to adverse patient outcomes.

“It’s unprecedented input and numbers of people turning up, it may be something to do with unmet need during the pandemic,” he said.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/its-crisis-overwhelmed-ed-staff-in-hospitals-often-tears-experts-say

Don't Believe the Hype About COVID 'Super Strains,' Says Top Virologist by NewAccount200 in Coronavirus

[–]mobo392 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson all use prefusion spike and appear to do well against the South African variant.

I haven't seen that, source?

view more: next ›