▲ 295 ▼ Nvidia and TSMC produce the first Blackwell wafer made in the U.S. — chips still need to be shipped back to Taiwan to complete the final product (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 1 year ago by BombOmOm@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (8 children) Than by anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent