Google, Amazon, Apple, MSFT, Meta & Nvidia didn't face "China risk", but AI firms do. As Tik Tok saga has proven, the days of running large losses for years, to recover it all back in IPO, and monopolize thereafter, may be over.

China might win the AI race and force the hand of USG for yet another national security imperative, to expropriate foreign assets.

https://shader-playground.timjones.io/

Additionally you can select CUDA C++ or PTX on compiler explorer.

Pentagon and the Media are owned and controlled by the same military-industrial complex and always agree to disagree with each other in public.

Debugging a program will become like debugging your relationships - you argue until one side gives up or both are exhausted!

1. Amazon files the most petitions for H1-B work visas after Indian IT shops. 2. Amazon opposed minimum wage increase to $15/hr until 2018! 3. Amazon not only fires union organizers, it's claiming National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional!

Unlike most commercial & medical applications where signals are stationary with white (uncorrelated) noise, the NSA & Rentec mostly deal with non-stationary signals with regime changes and correlated noise, which can't be denoised without loss of information.

The idea is not so much to predict the next stock price tick or to decipher an intercepted signal (most likely encrypted anyways), but rather to detect "regime changes", ie quickest detection of a change of pattern in non-stationary signals. Then the detected pattern is matched to known trading patterns for a particular stock or to the expected spy activities.

Methane pyrolysis is an old technology from early days of oil refining for production of hydrogen & Ammonia/fertilizer/Methanol. it yields half as much H2 than SMR/ATR so it can't compete on cost, unless there is carbon tax/CO2 penalty. Also, coke produced by pyrolysis is lower quality than that produced by Delayed Coking of crude oil refining.

Most of the comments seem to confuse pyrolysis (no O2) with reforming (H2O), which produces CO2. ATR uses partial O2 & H2O and is more energy efficient & cheaper.

Commonsense should tell you e- generated by H2 can't compete with CH4, because Ch4 is the feedstock & H2 is the product!

> Methane pyrolysis is an old technology from early days of oil refining for production of hydrogen & Ammonia/fertilizer/Methanol. it yields half as much H2 than SMR/ATR so it can't compete on cost, unless there is carbon tax/CO2 penalty.

Sounds like never trust anything written by chemical or mechanical engineers on costs, only economists/MBA :) ?

To be competitive on cost, not only the percent of used input should be taken into account, but also how much the one and another ways of processing are costing independently. If old technology methane pyrolysis produces half as much H2 but is quarter as cheap per unit of H2, it still wins whatever modern method is.

Just so we know if we should keep reading, which one are you?

Methane pyrolysis is an old technology from early days of oil refining for production of hydrogen & Ammonia/fertilizer/Methanol. it yields half as much H2 than SMR/ATR so it can't compete on cost, unless there is carbon tax/CO2 penalty.

It's not appropriate to call it "technology," in the same way it's not appropriate to call "combustion" a "technology." There's a very wide variety of technological solutions to realize this family of chemical processes, and some are going to be better than other, depending on the use case or scenario. The report actually covers those pathways reasonably well.

Also, coke produced by pyrolysis is lower quality than that produced by Delayed Coking of crude oil refining.

Ideally, you would not be producing coke at all, but a higher value material. However, even coke will be of much higher purity than petcoke (before calcining) -- i.e. it would be intrinsically zero-sulfur carbon material, - but I'm not sure what applications it would have that don't involve production of CO2.

But obviously the carbon co-product should have value, which would provide a cost offset to the hydrogen. With a high-quality co-product (> $1/kgC), this offset would be significant enough to provide that hydrogen essentially free of charge.

SMR and ATR generate significant amounts of CO2 (~10 kgCO2/kgH2), which does not provide a cost offset, and in a fair world would instead incur a significant added cost.

Electrolysis requires 4x more energy (also electric, not thermal) and does not have a marketable/valuable co-product. Just on the energy cost alone (50 kWh/kgH2 * 0.12 USD/kWh = 6 USD/kgH2 > 40 USD/MMBTU) electrolyzer hydrogen is not competitive with any of the above.

Commonsense should tell you e- generated by H2 can't compete with CH4, because Ch4 is the feedstock & H2 is the product!

Didn't parse this statement, sorry. Can you rephrase?

> Didn't parse this statement, sorry. Can you rephrase?

They might have meant something like: if you process A through B to C while you could also process A to C directly, then the latter direct process will usually be more economically viable.

While this heuristic sounds broadly reasonable, it neglects so many details of any real production processes and value chains that it seems hardly applicable to real world situations.

Politicians are bound to the interests of property owners not those who can't afford it. Besides high density bring high crimes, and high concentrated poverty

We need to put execs behind bar, before they'll ever respect labor or competition laws.