标签：#ics

Ask someone to name the most manufactured object in human history and you will hear guesses like the nail, the brick, or maybe the smartphone. The real answer is something almost nobody can name out loud: the MOSFET. This tiny transistor, invented at Bell Labs in 1959, is the on/off switch inside every microprocessor, memory chip, and connected sensor. An estimated 13 sextillion of them have been built since 1960, making the MOSFET not just the foundation of modern electronics but the most-produced artifact our species has ever made. What a MOSFET actually is MOSFET stands for metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor. Strip away the jargon and it is an electrically controlled switch with no moving parts. A small voltage on one terminal, the gate, controls whether current can flow between the other two. Billions of these switches flipping on and off billions of times per second is, quite literally, what computation is. The genius of the design is that it scales: shrink the transistor and you can pack more of them onto a chip while using less power per switch, the trend that drove decades of Moore's law. The breakthrough came from two engineers at Bell Labs, Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng, who fabricated the first working MOSFET in 1959. Their key insight was using a thin layer of silicon dioxide, ordinary glass, to insulate the gate from the silicon underneath. That oxide layer turned out to be the unlock that made silicon the dominant material in electronics, edging out the germanium used in the very first transistors of the late 1940s. Why it beat every earlier transistor The point-contact transistor demonstrated in 1947 and the integrated circuit of 1958 were both monumental, but neither was easy to mass-produce by the standards we take for granted today. The MOSFET was different. It was simpler to fabricate at scale, drew far less power in its complementary (CMOS) configuration, and lent itself to the photolithographic processes that let manufacturers pr

Anthropic's engineers ship eight times more code than they did a few years ago. And they had to start scheduling lunches so people would talk to each other. Fiona Fung, who leads the Claude Code team, said it on Lenny's Podcast last week. Working with agents all day had started to feel isolating. The team was fast, but they'd stopped running into each other. So they added pairwise programming lunches and hackathons — rituals to put back the thing that used to happen on its own. Eight times the output. Scheduled conversation. That ratio is worth sitting with. Whatever goes missing here doesn't show up in the metrics. It doesn't throw an error. It just quietly stops being available. Here's the part that bugs me most. Ask an AI whether your approach is sound and it mostly tells you it is. Not because it's lying — because it's answering the prompt. No stake in the outcome, no history with the system, no memory of the last three times this exact idea was tried and quietly failed. A colleague pushing back is a different thing. They've got context you never typed into the window, because they were there when it was earned. They're going to maintain this too. They might be wrong — but wrong in a direction you hadn't thought of. An agent can't disagree with you like that. It agrees faster. Same with scope. The agent builds what you ask for, all of it, thoroughly. It won't mention that the third feature is the one nobody will use, or that "good enough" happened two iterations ago, or that something next door already solves most of this. Knowing when to stop comes from someone who's watched a codebase rot under a hundred individually-reasonable decisions. And it only knows what you put in front of it. The person who worked on payments remembers the edge case you're about to recreate. The junior who joined three months ago still sees the thing everyone stopped noticing. That gap — between what's in the window and what isn't — is where the expensive mistakes live. Then the part

I noticed something a few months ago. I was talking less to my colleagues. Not because anything was wrong. I had a question, I described it to an AI, I got something useful back. Why loop in a human if the loop is already closed? It took a while to name what was actually happening. There's a version of the AI story where the interesting work disappears. The agent implements. The spec session produces the plan. Humans review the output. What's left? Ticket hygiene and rubber stamping. Engineering as a series of approvals. I think that's wrong. But I understand why it feels true. Here's what I think is actually happening instead. The agent produces the increment. But the agent doesn't decide what the increment should move toward. It doesn't know whether this library is the right bet for the next three years. It doesn't know which of two implementation approaches leaves options open and which quietly closes them. It doesn't know whether the architectural call made today creates a problem nobody will notice until the system is under load eighteen months from now. That work — giving the project direction, validating trade-offs, deciding what the system becomes — isn't specable. You can't write a ticket for it. And it's not going away. The craft didn't disappear. It moved. Direction is the word I keep coming back to. The agent executes well. It implements against a spec. It generates options when you ask for them. But it doesn't carry a point of view about where the system should go. It doesn't have a stake in the decision. It will implement the wrong architectural direction just as confidently as the right one, if that's what the spec says. Someone has to hold the direction. Someone has to know enough about the codebase's history, the team's constraints, and the product's trajectory to say: not that library, we've been down that road. Not that pattern, it doesn't survive the load we're heading toward. This approach now, that refactor later, in this order, for these reaso

"A fool with a tool is still a fool." — often attributed to Grady Booch I keep coming back to this quote when I watch teams adopt AI. In my last post ( https://schrottner.at/2026/06/18/The-Wrong-End-of-the-Problem.html ) I wrote about shifting the engineering process left — spec sessions, autonomous agents, humans reviewing output rather than writing it. A few people asked the obvious follow-up: if an agent implements and an AI reviews, why do I need a team at all? It's a fair question. And I think the answer is in that quote. The agent validates against your prompt. That's it. If your thinking is muddled, the output will be muddled — just faster and at greater cost. An agent doesn't tell you that you're solving the wrong problem. It solves whatever problem you gave it, thoroughly and without complaint. Most AI usage right now treats AI as a tool. Which means the quality of the output is bounded by the quality of the thinking that went into the prompt. A fool with a tool is still a fool. The tool just makes the foolishness more expensive. The team is the check on intent. Not after the agent has burned three sprints on the wrong thing — before it starts. That's what mob planning actually is, when you think about it. Not a meeting. Not process overhead. It's the place where bad ideas get caught before they get expensive. Where someone asks "wait, why are we building this" before an agent runs with it for a week. But there's something else happening in that room that I think gets underestimated. It's where the learning happens. Not just prompting. System thinking. Architectural patterns. How to decompose a problem. Why a certain approach fits this codebase and another doesn't. How a senior frames a problem before an agent ever touches it — the mental model that makes the output actually good. Right now that knowledge isn't transferring. Everyone is heads-down with their own tools, developing their own habits in isolation. Engineer A gets dramatically better output than

While European tourists marvel at ranch dressing, Buc-ee's, and other wonders of Middle America, would-be World Cup attendees from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have experienced a different American pastime: exclusion. President Donald Trump's nakedly racist immigration policies have prevented scores of people from traveling to the United States for the event - even, […]

It's "an exciting advance in efforts to restock the antibiotic arsenal."

Edward Nalwamba is a 78-year-old retired pastor whose health has rapidly declined while in detention, his attorney says.

It's a stretch to think that the continent can build a top-tier model, but it has an advantage: Donald Trump.

What began as a “flamingo revolution” to protest the $1.4 billion development on Sazan Island has spiraled into mass protests against a ruling party that thousands now want out.

The country was hit hard by a pair of quakes that happened in quick succession and were likely driven by stress being transferred from one part of the fault that runs through the country to another.

At the right point of the orbit and stellar cycle, the star's chromosphere brightens.

General Intuition has raised $320 million to scale AI trained on millions of hours of gameplay, betting action data can help AI develop something closer to human intuition.

General Intuition has raised $320 million to scale AI trained on millions of hours of gameplay, betting action data can help AI develop something closer to human intuition.

Farday Future hasn't quite given up on EVs, but it's now also pitching a lineup of robots, including humanoids and a quadruped with an optional canine heads.

Just days after a gunman killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk, it became clear that President Donald Trump would use the assassination to fuel a crackdown on free speech. To avenge Kirk's death, the administration vowed to go after so-called "antifa" (otherwise known as antifascist) terrorists. Now that promise is bearing fruit. This week, eight Texas […]

The Internet of Things is now a phrase you see on product boxes, in boardroom slide decks, and across thesis titles in engineering departments everywhere. But it has a surprisingly precise origin. The term was coined in 1999 by a British technologist named Kevin Ashton, and it was not born in a research lab or an academic paper. It started its life as the title of a corporate sales presentation. A slide deck, not a laboratory In the late 1990s Ashton was a brand manager at Procter & Gamble, the consumer goods giant behind products you would find on any supermarket shelf. He was wrestling with a mundane but expensive problem: store shelves kept running out of a particular shade of lipstick, even though the warehouse had plenty in stock. The supply chain simply had no reliable way to know, in real time, what was where. Ashton's proposed fix was radio-frequency identification, or RFID: tiny tags that could be attached to products and read automatically by sensors, with no human scanning each item by hand. The vision was that physical objects could report their own location and status, feeding that data up into computer systems without anyone typing it in. To sell this idea to executives, he needed a title that would make supply-chain tagging sound as exciting as the technology dominating headlines at the time. So he linked his RFID proposal to the hottest topic of 1999 and called the presentation "Internet of Things." By his own account, years later in RFID Journal, the choice was deliberate. Tying tags and sensors to the red-hot word "internet" was the surest way to get senior people in the room to pay attention. The pitch worked well enough that the phrase stuck, and Ashton went on to help found the Auto-ID Center at MIT, a research group that did much of the early standards work that made networked RFID practical. Why the name was actually a good description It would be easy to dismiss the term as a marketing flourish, but it captured something real. Ashton's point

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) says her staff used AI for "spellcheck" in an amendment summary for a major defense bill, but denies it was used for the bill text itself and says "NO Legislation is ever drafted with AI." Luna issued the response after accounts on X began sharing screenshots of an amendment summary […]

This curious phenomenon was documented by the seismometer at the University of Bergen, which recorded slight vibrations whenever the national team scored a goal.

The expensive, $27 million political proxy war between Anthropic and OpenAI came to a draw last night when Alex Bores, a New York state Assemblyman whose popularity surged after being targeted by a pro-AI super PAC, narrowly lost the Democratic primary to represent New York's 12th Congressional district. Prior to the race, Bores, a former […]

Agility Robotics, the humanoid robotics startup that spun out of Oregon State University in 2015, expects to generate $620 million in proceeds.