DRAM is just one level in the memory hierarchy and it can absolutely be tested by the other levels in the system. It won't be continually monitored, and there will be a performance penalty, and it's a PITA, but it can definitely be done without hardware ECC. Even some of that can be minimized as most tests are statistical in nature anyway.
If you do not monitor it continuously, you achieve nothing, because the memory errors happen seldom and unpredictably.
Without ECC, you need a custom operating system, which will compute some error detection code, e.g. a CRC, for each read-only memory page, i.e. including all code pages and constant pages, and all cached but not dirty file system pages, and which will check the CRC codes periodically in the background.
That would still leave the read-write data segments unprotected, though on those some errors may be benign, if the locations are overwritten later without being read again.
I would think most servers and workstations would be RDIMM (Registered DIMM) by now and consumer stuff uses soldered down memory. Memory failing because it's old is definitely a thing, and very possible in this scenario, but I feel like I haven't seen errors due to physical insertion, that were not caught immediately by POST, in years.
> $150k in today's dollars. They were very, very expensive.
It's very expensive for a hobbyist, but not very very expensive for a professional lab, which I think would be the target market for something like a Tektronix 576 in 1970. It's basically equivalent to buying a mid-tier 10GHz scope today Which is a normal piece of lab equipment in 2026 for a professional lab. It's not even uncommon to see them in University labs.
If a hobbyist wants an I-V curve you generate a 1Hz triangle wave of current with an dual opamp and use X-Y mode on your scope. More than good enough for the overwhelming majority of hobby applications. Unless you're writing a textbook and want fancy plots, then fine. Use an SMU. :)
I think it's fair to say absorbing functions onto the CPU die, reducing the part count of motherboards, was a natural evolution of the PC and made sense. So I don't really fault Intel for that. But they definitely had other tricks up their sleeve...
Just out of curiosity, what is the change and how are you measuring its rate?
From no internet to internet the change is pretty profound. But my job is already very automated for the most part. It's true AI might automate it a bit more, but it's not like I'm going from zero automation to full on automation. That's not nothing, and it is worth something, but it's also not internet from no internet level of change either.
> On a performance-per-watt basis, Apple is still behind an Nvidia card with the juiced up power consumption, and when you dial back the power draw, Nvidia cards are miles ahead of Apple's silicon for performance-per-watt.
Do you have a citation on Apple vs nVidia performance-per-watt? I'm not aware of any benchmark that shows nVidia with a better performance-per-watt. Higher performance, sure, but performance-per-watt, not that I'm aware of.
Apple vs. Oranges: Evaluating the Apple Silicon M-Series SoCs for HPC Performance and Efficiency
"Apple's M-series GPUs offer massive performance-per-watt, scaling efficiently from roughly 5W in base chips to around 40-50W in top-tier Max chips. This efficiency generally sits between 200 and 250 GFLOPS per Watt."
Sure. nVidia GPUs have higher performance. But they do it with 450W+ a.k.a. 10x the power
The highest cause was heart disease (~680K) which has a best preventative step of maintaining at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise weekly. Between 45% to 50% of Americans, of any age, are estimated to have done that.
