predict foretell forecast reading room: soldier and scout Julia Galef

____________________________________

Soldiers and Scouts: Why our minds weren't built for truth | Julia Galef

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRC8ZgBXZw

Long Now Foundation

Oct 18, 2019

soldier mindset : (directionally motivated reasoning)

cling to a single worldview (course of action) and

look for evidences to support that worldview

So, it's reasoning that is unconscious, usually.

So, we're hunting for arguments in favor of something that we want to believe or that we already believe.

scout mindset : (accuracy-motivated reasoning)

get as accurate as possible the landscape

figuring out what is actually true.

their role is not to attack or defend, but it's to go out, see what's really there and form as accurate a map of an issue or a situation as possible, including all of the uncertainties and unknowns.

____________________________________

manipulative function of perception

manipulative function of interpretation

manipulative function of perspective

manipulative function of point of view

manipulative function from several point of view

____________________________________

https://thedecisionlab.com/podcasts/soldiers-and-scouts-with-julia-galef

Julia Galef is a the co-founder and president of the Center for Applied Rationality and host of the podcast Rationally Speaking. Her work on rationality has been featured in publications such as Scientific American, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and TED. Julia is also an acclaimed YouTuber and writer - The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Other's Don't is her first book.

────────────────────────────────────

Summary:

■ Luxottica, a European company

■ Tudor industrial policy, England

■ Toyota, automobile, Japan

■ Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC, integrated circuit fabrication, pureplay, Taiwan

■ Intel, integrated circuit fabrication, vertical integration, United States

[[ Transistor ]] [[ transistor level development ]]

1963 CMOS (complementary MOS) was invented

1967 first report of a floating-gate MOSFET

1984 A double-gate MOSFET was first demonstrated, Electrotechnical Laboratory, Japan

1989 a type of 3D non-planar multi-gate MOSFET, Hitachi Central Research Laboratory, Japan

[[ integrated circuit (IC) ]] [[ circuit level development ]]

1959 inventions of the monolithic integrated circuit (IC) chip (Fairchild)

inventions of MOSFET (MOS transistor)

1960 first proposed the concept of the MOS integrated circuit (MOS IC) chip

1964 first commercial MOS IC was introduced by General Microelectronics

The development of the MOS IC led to the invention of the microprocessor

1971 first single-chip microprocessor was the Intel 4004

1974 Intel 8080, "the first truly usable microprocessor"

────────────────────────────────────

Adam Grant, Originals : how non-conformists move the world, 2016 [ ]

p.8

That's when they learned that it was dominated by Luxottica, a European company that had raked in over $7 billion the previous year. “Understanding that the same company owned LensCrafters and Pearle Vision, Ray-Ban and Oakley, and the licenses for Chanel and Prada prescription frames and sunglasses──all of a sudden, it made sense to me why glasses were so expensive,” Dave says, “Nothing in the cost of goods justified the price.” Taking advantage of its monopoly status, Luxottica was charging 20 times the cost.

(Originals : how non-conformists move the world / Adam Grant, 2016, forward by Sheryl Sandberg, LCSH: Creative thinking. Creative ability in business. Organizational change. New products. Entrepreneurship. Success in business., )

____________________________________

Ha-Joon Chang., Bad samaritans: the myth of free trade and the secret history of capitalism, 2008

p.40

Daniel Dafoe, A Plan of the English Commerce, 1728

Daniel Dafoe, the author of Robinson Crusoe,

pp.40-42

pp.40-41

However, the book was a thorough and insightful account of Tudor industrial policy (under England's Tudor monarchs) that has much to teach us today.

In the book (henceforth A Plan), Dafoe describes how the Tudor monarchs, especially Henry VII and Elizabeth I, used protectionism, subsidies, distribution of monopoly rights, government-sponsored industrial espionage and other means of government intervention to develop England's woollen manufacturing industry ─ Europe's high-tech industry at the time. Until Tudor times, Britain had been a relatively backward economy, relying on exports of raw wool to finance imports. The woollen manufacturing industry was centred in the Low Countries (today Belgium and the Netherlands), especially the cities of Bruges, Ghent and Ypres in Flanders. Britain exported its raw wool and made a reasonable profit. But those foreigners who knew how to convert the wood into clothes were generating much greater profits.

p.41

It is the law of competition that people who can do difficult things which others cannot will earn more profits. This is the situation that Henry VII wanted to change in the late 15th century.2

p.41

According to Dafoe, Henry VII sent royal missions to identify locations suited to woollen manufacturing.3 Like Edward III before him, he poached skilled workers from the Low Countries.4 He also increased the tax on the export of raw wool, and even temporarily banned its export, inorder to encourage further processing of the raw material at home.

p.41

In 1489, he also banned the export of unfinnished cloth, save for coarse pieces below a certain market value, in order to promote further processing at home.5 His son, Henry VIII, continued the policy and banned the export of unfinished cloth in 1512, 1513, and 1536.

p.41

As Dafoe emphasizes, Henry VII did not have any illusions as to how quickly the English producers could catch up with their sophisticated competitors in the Low Countries.6 The King raised export duties on raw wool only when the English industry was established enough to handle the volume of wool to be processed. Henry when quickly withdraw his ban on raw wool exports when it became clear that Britain simply did not have the capacity to process all the raw wool it produced.7 p.41

Indeed, according to A Plan, it was not until 1578, in the middle of Elizabeth I's reign (1558-1603) ─ nearly 100 years after Henry VII had started his ‘import substitution industrialization’ policy in 1489 ─ that Britain had sufficient processing capacity to ban raw wool exports totally.8

p.41

Once in place, however, the export ban drove the competing manufacturers in the Low Countries, who were now deprived of their raw materials, to ruin.

pp.41-42

Without the policies put in place by Henry VII and further pursued by his successors, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for Britain to have transformed itself from a raw-material exporter into the European centre of the then high-tech industry.

p.42

Wool manufacture became Britain's most important export industry. It provided most of the export earnings to finance the massive import of raw materials and food that fed the Industrial Revolution.9

p.42

A Plan shatters the foundation myth of capitalism that Britain succeeded because it figured out the true path to prosperity before other countries ─ free market and free trade.

p.42

In A Plan, Defoe clearly shows that it was not the free market but government protection and subsidies that developed British woollen manufacturing. Defying signals from the market that his country was an efficient raw wool producer and should remain so, Henry VII introduced policies that deliberately distorted such unwelcome notions. By doing so, he started the process that eventually transformed Britain into a leading manufacturing nation.

p.45

It banned cotton textile imports from India (‘calicoes’), which were then superior to the British ones. In 1699 it banned the export of woollen cloth from its colonies to other countries (the Wool Act), destroying the Irish woollen industry and stifling the emergence of woollen manufacture in America.

(Bad samaritans: the myth of free trade and the secret history of capitalism / Ha-Joon Chang., 1. free trade, 2. capitalism, )

____________________________________

Ha-Joon Chang., Bad samaritans: the myth of free trade and the secret history of capitalism, 2008

pp.19-20

p.19

Many argued that the company should have stuck to its original business of making simple textile machinery. After all, the country's biggest export item was silk. If the company could not make good cars after 25 years of trying, these was no future for it. The government had given the car maker every opportunity to succeed. It had ensured high profits for it at home through high tariffs and draconian controls on foreign investment in the car industry. Fewer than ten years ago, it even gave public money to save the company from imminent backruptcy. So, the critics argued, foreign cars should now be let in freely and foreign car makers, who had been kicked out 20 years before, allowed to set up show again.

pp.19-20

Other disagreed. They argued that no country had go anywhere without developing

‘serious’ industries like automobile production. They just needed more time to make cars that appealed to everyone.

The year was 1958 and the country was, in fact, Japan. The company was Toyota, and the car was called the Toyopet. Toyota started out as a manufacturer of textile machinery (Toyoda Automatic Loom) and moved into car production in 1933. The Japanese government kicked out General Motors and Ford in 1939 and bailed out Toyota with money from the central bank (Bank of Japan) in 1949.

p.20

Today, Japanese cars are considered as ‘natural’ as Scottish salmon or French wine, but fewer than 50 years ago, most people, including many Japanese, thought the Japanese car industry simply should not exist.

p.21

However, the fact is that, had the Japanese government followed the free-trade economists back in the early 1960s, there would have been no Lexus. Toyota today would, at best, be a junior partner to some western car manufacturer, or worse, have been wipe out. The same would have been true for the entire Japanese economy.

(Bad samaritans: the myth of free trade and the secret history of capitalism / Ha-Joon Chang., 1. free trade, 2. capitalism, )

____________________________________

Peter Thiel with Blake Masters., Zero to one : notes on startups, or how to build the future, 2014

p.89

Power law distributions are so big that they hide in plain sight.

p.104

the monopoly secret: competition and capitalism are opposite

do a quantitative study of corporate profits and you'll see they're eliminated by competition.

what are people running companies not allowed to say?

detailed notes on Peter's class “Computer Science 183: startup”

https://blakemasters.tumblr.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup/

(Zero to one : notes on startups, or how to build the future / Peter Thiel with Blake Masters., 1. new business enterprises., 2. new products., 3. entrepreneurship., 4. diffusion of innovations., HD62.5.T525 2014, 685.1'1──dc23, 2014)

____________________________________

Peter Thiel with Blake Masters., Zero to one : notes on startups, or how to build the future, 2014

p.5

Whenever I interview someone for a job, I like to ask this question: “What important truth do very few people agree with you on?”

This question sounds easy because it's straightforward. Actually, it's very hard to answer. It's intellectually difficult because the knowledge that everyone is taught in school is by definition agreed upon. And it's psychologically difficult because anyone trying to answer must say something she knows to be unpopular. Brilliant thinking is rare, but courage is in even shorter supply than genius.

p.6

A good answer takes the following form: “Most people believe in x, but the truth is the opposite of x.” I'll give my own answer later in this chapter.

p.6

But what makes the future distinctive and important isn't that it hasn't happened yet, but rather that it will be a time when the world looks different from today.

p.6

If things change radically in the next decade, then the future is nearly at hand. No one can predict the future exactly, but we know two things: it's going to be different, and it must be rooted in today's world.

p.6

Most answers to the contrarian question are different ways of seeing the present; good answers are as close as we can come to looking into the future.

pp.8─9

My own answer to the contrarian question is that most people think the future of the world will be defined by globalization, but the truth is that technology matters more.

detailed notes on Peter's class “Computer Science 183: startup”

https://blakemasters.tumblr.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup/

____________________________________

Marvin Centron with Alicia Pagano and Otis Port, The future of American business., 1985

pp.183-184

The Taipei government has seen the handwriting on the wall for a decade, but it has had scant success in persuading industrialists to invest in newer markets. In the early seventies the government decided to start the ball rolling and founded the Electronics Research and Service Organization [ERSO] to spearhead the drive into semiconductors and electronics. When that example didn't catch on, the government intervened again in 1979, setting up the Institute for Information Technology, a software R&D center, and underwriting part of United Microelectronics corporation, a maker of integrated circuits. But neither of these initiatives has been a barn-burner, either. Taiwan's business leaders are typically in their sixties and simply scared of the risks entailed in high-tech diversification. Most of the $290 million of computer equipment that Taiwan exported in 1983 came from foreign-owned assembly plants.

So now Taiwan is dangling venture capital in front of expatriate Chinese who came to the United States for a degree in electrical engineering or computer science and stayed on to work in Silicon Valley or along Route 128. Three Silicon Valley companies headed by Chinese managers have risen to the bait and are building chip making plants in Taiwan. Government officials hope they will be the nucleus of future growth as younger, more adventurous managers take over the reins of business in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the move into microchips comes too little, too late.

(The future of American business./ Marvin Centron with Alicia Pagano and Otis Port, 1. united states──industries──forecasting., 2. economic forecasting──united states., 3. united states──economic conditions──1981-, HC106.8.C45 1985, 338.5'443'0973, ISBN 0-07-010349-6, 1985, )

____________________________________

The R&D system for industrial development in Taiwan

Tain-Sue Jan*, Yijen Chen

National Chiao Tung University, Department of Management Science, 1001 Ta Hsueh Road, Hsinchu 30050, Taiwan

.... ... ....

The Taiwanese semiconductor industry began in the mid-1960s, when foreign enterprises used the low labor costs of Taiwan to establish their encapsulation plants. Crucial to the true development of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry was the intervention of the government in 1974 in establishing ERSO (Electronics Research and Service Organization) within ITRI, a government-supported R&D institute responsible for supervising the development of the semiconductor industry, and for providing relevant key technologies and human resources. ERSO was crucial in establishing the Taiwanese electronics industry through technology R&D, technology transfers and spin-offs. In 1976, ERSO introduced the 7 Am CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide on Silicon) IC (integrated circuit) design and production process technology from RCA of the United States. Then in 1977, ERSO established the first IC pilot plant in Taiwan. Through absorption, utilization, and self-development, ERSO converted IC production process technology into merchandise and conducted a pilot run program. To avoid emphasizing production capacity at the expense of R&D at ITRI, ITRI considered transferring the merchandising to the private sector. At this stage Taiwan had no semiconductor industry, and the private sector lacked the confidence to establish IC firms. Therefore, ERSO decided to transfer technology and human resources to ITRI-derived companies. In 1979, UMC, the first IC company in Taiwan was born.

In 1982, ITRI initiated research on and development of Very Large Scale Integrated (VLSI) semiconductor production processes, and upgraded the 7 Am process to 2 Am technology. In 1987, R&D by ITRI resulted in the spinning off of Taiwan’s first 6-in. wafer fabrication foundry, TSMC, which was also the first pure semiconductor foundry in the world. ITRI transferred some 100 of the engineers it had trained to this spin-off and used its pilot plant as the manufacturing site for the fledgling TSMC. TSMC ran successfully right from the earliest stages of its development. This smooth running can be attributed to the transfer of personnel and equipment. In mid-1988, the production technology of TSMC was just nine months behind that of TI and Intel. The advanced semiconductor production process technology and the operating model of the semiconductor foundry led to the establishment of the semiconductor encapsulation, testing, and design industries as well as the consolidation of the Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturing industry. Taiwan did not have a complete system for the vertical division of the semiconductor industry by 1988, although one was gradually appearing [20]. To establish a complete supply chain for the semiconductor industry and to prevent brain drain, beginning in 1989 ITRI organized the transfer of people, technologies and equipment to the first photomask company in Taiwan, TMC. Since then Taiwan has had a complete semiconductor industrial system, including sub-industries in IC design, photomask manufacture, wafer fabrication, IC packaging and testing, with each sub-industry specializing in its own area of expertise [20].

.... ... ....

source:

http://entofa.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/The-RD-system-for-industrial-development-in-Taiwan.pdf

____________________________________

Oded Shenkar, The chinese century : the rising chinese economy and its impact on the global economy, the balance of power, and your job, 2005

p.8

U.S.-China business council

the powerful business lobby for China,

major exporters to this market, such as Boeing,

and those who rely on Chinese imports to remain competitive.

p.8

Foreign Trade Division of the U.S. Census Bureau,

p.13

“Foreign Invested Enterprises” (foreign subsidiaries and cross-border joint venture companies) account for a big chunk of China's export growth because they have the know-how, quality level, reputation, distribution channels, and markets necessary for foreign market entry.

p.13

economic fundamentals (that is, it is cheaper to manufacture in China even when you take into account shipping and related costs)

p.13

And there is one more reason: compared to other developed economies, in particular the European Union, it is relatively simple to shut down operations in the United States, so manufacturing operations can be moved more easily to China and start exporting back into the U.S.

In contrast, EU firms (in particular in Germany and France) face enormous obstacles in shutting down domestic plants,

p.16

The Chinese edge in terms of cheaper labor cost, a modern infrastructure, and the benefits of scale and agglomeration is now often sufficient to erase the proximity of advantage of countries like Mexico, who have been counting on the combination of geography and NAFTA as a sort of insurance policy in the U.S. market.

p.22

■ An increasing fault line separating those U.S. industries and firms who see themselves as primarily beneficiaries of an increasing China trade and investment and those who see themselves as victims of China's ascent.

The first group consists of multinationals with extensive China operations;

the second includes companies who cannot substitute China investment for exit, including many small and medium firms.

The two groups will take on an opposing position on trade and protectionism and may align with the two political parties on the basis of their trade agenda.

p.23

the question is no longer if and when China is coming, for it is already here, but how to prepare for the new economy.

For instance, seeing the length to which the United States and Europe went to secure their oil reserves, why wouldn't an energy-starved and increasingly assertive China take the same route?

millennia of Chinese history suggest that it will chart its own course,

but if history is clue (and I believe it is), China will not be satisfied with anything but a position of prominence, however defined.

p.101

If you are in a labor-intensive industry, such as textiles, apparel, shoes, and man-made luggage, Chinese competition may have driven you out of business.

p.101

if you are a producers of durable household goods, such as applicances, you may still be in business courtesy of Chinese manufacturing or outsourcing;

p.102

American Rubber & Plastics Footwear Manufacturers Association (RPFMA)

5 per cent of the footwear sold in the United States, are still produced here.

p.102

In business, the rise of China will challenge basic assumptions regarding the nature of national and firm competitiveness, the value of geographic proximity, and the cost of market entry and exit. Location advantages that have underpinned company survival and prosperity for decades ── and sometimes for centuries ── will be questioned, and the global mobility of production factors will accelerate under a global supply chain.

pp.104-105

China's winning formula rests not only on low wages. As the ITC notes, China does not have the lowest wages in this sector, but it has the lowest per-unit costs due to higher productivity and scale economies.

The country has the supporting industries that facilitate production;

for instance, it is the largest manufacturer of man-made fibers.

Vertical integration of large manufacturers permits rapid response and keep outsiders away from the value chain.

Chinese apparel makers are also better capitalized than developing country makers, permitting the introduction of the newest technology.

The result is a one-stop shop unavailable anywhere else.

China will become the supplier of choice, offers the ITC report, “because of its ability to make almost any type of textile and apparel product at any quality level at a competitive price.”

p.125, p.127, p.128

foreign direct investment and its affiliates compete with domestic jobs twice:

first, by shifting employment that would have taken place domestically;

second, by exporting back to the [home] market thereby displaying [home country] workers employed by their domestic competitors.11

- loss of purchasing power by laid off workers

- most benefits are accrued to investors and customers

- most cost are born by employees,

- a substaintial social cost

- a common benefit that will not be shared by all

- that all of this has happened before.

p.127

loss of purchasing power by laid off workers (including loss of tax revenues),

a substantial social cost

Oded Shenkar, The chinese century : the rising chinese economy and its impact on the global economy, the balance of power, and your job, 2005

____________________________________

Ha-Joon Chang, Economics : the user's guide, 2014

p.47

At the time, Britain accounted for 20 per cent of world manufacturing output (as of 1860) and 46 per cent of world trade in manufactured goods (as of 1870), despite having only 2.5 per cent of the world population; these numbers can be put into perspective by noting that the corresponding figures for China today are 15 per cent and 14 per cent, despite its having 19 per cent of the world population.

first published 2014

this paperback edition published 2015

Ha-Joon Chang, Economics : the user's guide, 2014

____________________________________

── learning curve advantage over time

── (Apple, ARM, TSMC), Intel, 15 years

── why this moment was 15 years in the making

── former chief of staff (later general manager to Intel China) to Andrew Grove

── mobile phone industry

── Intel (manufacturing chips for the whole computer industry)

https://apple.slashdot.org/story/20/08/23/1846258/how-a-decision-by-apple-15-years-ago-hurts-intel-now

([ cannot get to the South China Morning Post piece ])

https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3098323/how-decision-15-years-ago-contributed-intels-fall-grace-today

How a Decision by Apple 15 Years Ago Hurts Intel Now (scmp.com)127

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday August 23, 2020 @01:50PM

The former chief of staff to Intel CEO Andrew Grove (and later general manager of Intel China) explains why this moment was 15 years in the making:

Learning curve theory says that the cost of manufacturing a product declines as the volume increases. Manufacturing chips for the whole computer industry gave Intel huge advantages of scale over any other semiconductor manufacturer and resulted in the company becoming the world's largest chip manufacturer with enviable profit margins.

Chaos theory says that a small change in one state of a system can cause a large change in a later stage. In Intel's case, this was not getting selected by Apple for its iPhones. Each successive era of computing was 10x the size of the previous era, so while Intel produced hundreds of millions of microprocessors per year, the mobile phone industry sells billions of units per year. Apple's decision in 2005 to use the ARM architecture instead of Intel's gave Taiwan-based TSMC, the foundry chosen to manufacture the processor chips for the iPhone, the learning curve advantage which over time enabled it to pull ahead of Intel in manufacturing process technology.

Intel's integrated model, its competitive advantage for decades, became its vulnerability. TSMC and ARM created a tectonic shift in the semiconductor industry by enabling a large number of "fabless" chip companies such as Apple, AMD, Nvidia and Qualcomm, to name a few. These fabless companies began to out-design Intel in the mobile phone industry and accelerated TSMC's lead over Intel in high volume manufacturing of the most advanced chips. Samsung, which also operates a foundry business, has been another beneficiary of this trend.

____________________________________

look up inside apple

____________________________________

George Stalk, Jr. (and) Thomas M. Hout., Competing against time, 2009 [ ]

p.5

experience curve strategies

'experience curve and cost behaviours strategy'

1960s

An example of an early insight is experience-curve cost behaviour. The theory of the experience curve is that the costs of complex products and services, when corrected for the effects of inflation and arbitrary accounting standards, typically decline about 20 to 30 percent with each doubling of accumulated experience.

The fact that cost decline with accumulated volume has been recognized for a long time. In 1925, officers in the U.S. Army observed that as accumulated production volume of airframes increased, per-unit costs declined. In later investigations, the Army more specifically described the nature of this dynamic: They calculated that the 4th plane assembled required only 80 percent as much direct labour as the 2nd, the 8th plane only 80 percent as much direct labour as the 4th, the 16th plane required only 80 percent as much direct labour as the 13th, and so on.

During World War II, the understanding of this cost behaviour was critical for planning resource requirements in the aircraft industry. After the war, the aircraft industry continued to plot learning curves. For example, the learning phenomena for the Martin-Marietta-built Boeing B-29 and the Lockheed-built Boeing B-17, as decribed in a 1957 article, are shown in Exhibit 1-1. Learning curves continue to be used to predict program costs, to set schedules, to evaluate management performance, and to justify contract pricings. Moreover, the concept has been disseminated beyond the aircraft industry.

( Competing against time : how time-based competition is reshaping gloabl markets / George Stalk, Jr. (and) Thomas M. Hout., 1. time management., 2. delivery of goods., 3. competition, international., 4. comparative advantage (international trade)., p.5)

pp.6-8

experience cost behaviours

'experience curve and cost behaviours strategy'

Being able to predict next year's prices is enormously important to management. Being able to predict prices in five and ten years hence is a major strategic advantage. The managements of certain aggressive companies have realized that well-documented cost behaviour could be factored into their pricing strategies. They set pricing and investment strategies as a function of volume-driven costs. At time, they reduced prices below current costs in anticipation of the decline in costs that they knew would result from expansion of volume. Capacity was added ahead of demand. The earliest companies to adopt experience-based strategies ran roughshod over their slower-adapting competitors. They often pre-empted their competitors by claiming enough of a growing demand so that when their competitors attempted a response, little volume remained, and the leaders' cost could not be matched.

pp.8-9

Texas Intruments (TI)

Texas Instruments (TI) was an early user of experience-curve cost dynamics, and they grew rapidly against competitors whose managements did not understand the phenomenon. TI was an early technical innovator in silicon transistors and later semiconductors. The company was a management innovator as well. TI's management observed that with every doubling of accumulative production volume of a transistor, diode, and eventually a semiconductor, costs declined to 73 percent of their previous level. They managed a business with an inherent 73 percent learning curve and relied on this insight to set cost-cutting programings to ensure the continued decline in costs. In the market, TI slashed the prices of its products to stimulate demand so as to drive up the accumulated volume of production and drive down costs. TI hammered its competitors in diodes and transistors, moved on to prevail in semiconductors, and ultimately in hand-held calculators and digital watches.

Later, however, the management of TI encountered severe competitive problems in its watch and calculator businesses. Over-reliance on experience-curve-based strategies at the expense of market-driven strategies is often cited as the underlying flaw in TI's approach. This is an oversimplification. TI's determined effort to drive costs down allowed no room for product-line proliferation. That single-minded focus created an opening for hard-pressed competitors such as Casio and Hewlett-Packard to sell on features rather than on price——a strategy that eventually became the standard for the industry when costs and prices declined to the point that consumers cared more for function and style than for price.

____________________________________

[[ study 1: silicon material and device research : stabilize the silicon surface : silicon surface passivation process 1957 : process of silicon surface passivation by thermal oxidation ]]

For example,

• silicon integrated circuit technical and process developments

── In the 1957, a new method of semiconductor device fabrication, coating a silicon wafer with an insulating layer of silicon oxide so that electricity could reliably penetrate to the conducting silicon below, overcoming the surface states that prevented electricity from reaching the semiconducting layer.

── stabilize the silicon surface (development)

── coating a silicon wafer with an insulating layer of silicon oxide so that electricity could reliably penetrate to the conducting silicon below, overcoming the surface states that prevented electricity from reaching the semiconducting layer.

── thermal oxidation of a silicon substrate to yield a layer of silicon dioxide located between the drain contact and the source contact.[22][21]

── imagine: toast a slice of bread; a sliced of bread is generally soft; when you toast each side, the texture on the outer surface changed, giving it crunchiness; this changed in texture is done by heating the surface of the bread; analogically when we oxidized the surface of the silicon using heat treatment, the heat treatment thermally oxidized the silicon surface, enabling reliable electrical conductivity, to surpass the conductivity and performance of germanium;

── enabled silicon to surpass the conductivity and performance of germanium, leading to silicon replacing germanium as the dominant semiconductor material, and paving the way for the mass-production of silicon semiconductor devices.

── MOSFET (metal-oxide-silicon field-effect transistor), also known as the MOS transistor

── FinFET (fin field-effect transistor)

According to Chih-Tang Sah (October 1988) in "Evolution of the MOS transistor-from conception to VLSI", Proceedings of the IEEE., “Those of us active in silicon material and device research during 1956–1960 considered this successful effort by the Bell Labs group led by Atalla to stabilize the silicon surface the most important and significant technology advance, which blazed the trail that led to silicon integrated circuit technology developments in the second phase and volume production in the third phase.”

stabilize the silicon surface

Mohamed M. Attalla Developed the silicon surface passivation process in 1957,[92][103] and then invented the MOSFET (metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor), the first practical implementation of a field-effect transistor, with Dawon Kahng in 1959.[93][94][95][96] This led to a breakthrough in semiconductor technology,[104][105] and revolutionized the electronics industry.[93][94]

^ Sah, Chih-Tang (October 1988). "Evolution of the MOS transistor-from conception to VLSI" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE. 76 (10): 1280–1326 (1290). Bibcode:1988IEEEP..76.1280S. doi:10.1109/5.16328. ISSN 0018-9219. Those of us active in silicon material and device research during 1956–1960 considered this successful effort by the Bell Labs group led by Atalla to stabilize the silicon surface the most important and significant technology advance, which blazed the trail that led to silicon integrated circuit technology developments in the second phase and volume production in the third phase.

http://www.dejazzer.com/ece723/resources/Evolution_of_the_MOS_transistor.pdf

source:

en.wikipedia.org

Bell Labs

CMOS

____________________________________

── process of silicon surface passivation by thermal oxidation, which electrically stabilized silicon suface and reduced the concentration of electronic states at the surface.

── this enabled silicon to surpass the conductivity and performance of germanium, leading to silicon replacing germanium as the dominant semiconductor material, and paving the way for the mass-production of silicon semiconductor devices.

── MOSFET (metal-oxide-silicon field-effect transistor), also known as the MOS transistor

── MOSFET was initially overlooked and ignored by Bell Labs in favour of bipolar transistors

thermal oxidation [thermal is heat, oxidation is when oxygen in the air bind with the surface material; two common phenomenons in oxidation are rusting iron (notice able by the red coloration), and rusting cooper (green color); thermal oxidation is when you heat the material at high enough temperature that an oxidated coating is created on the surface of the material; ...]

In 1957, Mohamed Atalla at Bell Labs developed the process of silicon surface passivation by thermal oxidation,[28][29][30] which electrically stabilized silicon surfaces[31] and reduced the concentration of electronic states at the surface.[29] This enabled silicon to surpass the conductivity and performance of germanium, leading to silicon replacing germanium as the dominant semiconductor material,[30][32] and paving the way for the mass-production of silicon semiconductor devices.[33] This led to Atalla inventing the MOSFET (metal-oxide-silicon field-effect transistor), also known as the MOS transistor, with his colleague Dawon Kahng in 1959.[34] It was the first truly compact transistor that could be miniaturised and mass-produced for a wide range of uses,[35] and is credited with starting the silicon revolution.[32]

The MOSFET was initially overlooked and ignored by Bell Labs in favour of bipolar transistors, which led to Atalla resigning from Bell Labs and joining Hewlett-Packard in 1961.[36] However, the MOSFET generated significant interest at RCA and Fairchild Semiconductor. In late 1960, Karl Zaininger and Charles Meuller fabricated a MOSFET at RCA, and Chih-Tang Sah built an MOS-controlled tetrode at Fairchild. MOS devices were later commercialized by General Microelectronics and Fairchild in 1964.[34] The development of MOS technology became the focus of startup companies in California, such as Fairchild and Intel, fuelling the technological and economic growth of what would later be called Silicon Valley.[37]

Following the 1959 inventions of the monolithic integrated circuit (IC) chip by Robert Noyce at Fairchild, and the MOSFET (MOS transistor) by Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng at Bell Labs,[34] Atalla first proposed the concept of the MOS integrated circuit (MOS IC) chip in 1960,[35] and then the first commercial MOS IC was introduced by General Microelectronics in 1964.[38] The development of the MOS IC led to the invention of the microprocessor,[39] incorporating the functions of a computer's central processing unit (CPU) on a single integrated circuit.[40] The first single-chip microprocessor was the Intel 4004,[41] designed and realized by Federico Faggin along with Ted Hoff, Masatoshi Shima and Stanley Mazor at Intel in 1971.[39][42] In April 1974, Intel released the Intel 8080,[43] a "computer on a chip", "the first truly usable microprocessor".

1959 inventions of the monolithic integrated circuit (IC) chip (Fairchild)

inventions of MOSFET (MOS transistor)

1960 first proposed the concept of the MOS integrated circuit (MOS IC) chip

1964 first commercial MOS IC was introduced by General Microelectronics

The development of the MOS IC led to the invention of the microprocessor

1971 first single-chip microprocessor was the Intel 4004

1974 Intel 8080, "the first truly usable microprocessor"

arcade mamchine, 6502

source:

en.wikipedia.org

Silicon Valley

____________________________________

field-effect transistor (FET)

Shockley's research team initially attempted to build a field-effect transistor (FET), by trying to modulate the conductivity of a semiconductor, but was unsuccessful, mainly due to problems with the surface states, the dangling bond, and the germanium and copper compound materials. In the course of trying to understand the mysterious reasons behind their failure to build a working FET, this led them instead to invent the bipolar point-contact and junction transistors.[22][23]

Semiconductor companies initially focused on junction transistors in the early years of the semiconductor industry. The junction transistor was a relatively bulky device that was difficult to mass-produce, which limited it to several specialized applications. Field-effect transistors (FETs) were theorized as potential alternatives to junction transistors, but researchers initially could not get FETs to work properly, largely due to the troublesome surface state barrier that prevented the external electric field from penetrating the material.[52]

In the 1950s, Egyptian engineer Mohamed Atalla investigated the surface properties of silicon semiconductors at Bell Labs, where he proposed a new method of semiconductor device fabrication, coating a silicon wafer with an insulating layer of silicon oxide so that electricity could reliably penetrate to the conducting silicon below, overcoming the surface states that prevented electricity from reaching the semiconducting layer. This is known as surface passivation, a method that became critical to the semiconductor industry as it later made possible the mass-production of silicon integrated circuits.[53][54] He presented his findings in 1957.[55] Building on his surface passivation method, he developed the metal–oxide–semiconductor (MOS) process.[53] He proposed the MOS process could be used to build the first working silicon FET, which he began working on building with the help of his Korean colleague Dawon Kahng.[53]

The metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET), or MOS transistor, was invented by Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng in 1959.[4][5] The MOSFET was the first truly compact transistor that could be miniaturized and mass-produced for a wide range of uses.[52] In a self-aligned CMOS process, a transistor is formed wherever the gate layer (polysilicon or metal) crosses a diffusion layer.[56]: p.1 (see Fig. 1.1) With its high scalability,[57] and much lower power consumption and higher density than bipolar junction transistors,[58] the MOSFET made it possible to build high-density integrated circuits,[6] allowing the integration of more than 10,000 transistors in a single IC.[59]

source:

en.wikipedia.org

Transistor

____________________________________

FinFET (fin field-effect transistor)

CMOS (complementary MOS) was invented by Chih-Tang Sah and Frank Wanlass at Fairchild Semiconductor in 1963.[60] The first report of a floating-gate MOSFET was made by Dawon Kahng and Simon Sze in 1967.[61] A double-gate MOSFET was first demonstrated in 1984 by Electrotechnical Laboratory researchers Toshihiro Sekigawa and Yutaka Hayashi.[62][63] FinFET (fin field-effect transistor), a type of 3D non-planar multi-gate MOSFET, originated from the research of Digh Hisamoto and his team at Hitachi Central Research Laboratory in 1989.[64][65]

[[ Transistor ]] [[ transistor level development ]]

1963 CMOS (complementary MOS) was invented

1967 first report of a floating-gate MOSFET

1984 A double-gate MOSFET was first demonstrated, Electrotechnical Laboratory, Japan

1989 a type of 3D non-planar multi-gate MOSFET, Hitachi Central Research Laboratory, Japan

[[ integrated circuit (IC) ]] [[ circuit level development ]]

1959 inventions of the monolithic integrated circuit (IC) chip (Fairchild)

inventions of MOSFET (MOS transistor)

1960 first proposed the concept of the MOS integrated circuit (MOS IC) chip

1964 first commercial MOS IC was introduced by General Microelectronics

The development of the MOS IC led to the invention of the microprocessor

1971 first single-chip microprocessor was the Intel 4004

1974 Intel 8080, "the first truly usable microprocessor"

source:

en.wikipedia.org

Transistor

____________________________________

Shang-Yi Chiang

https://ethw.org/Shang-Yi_Chiang

([ if you do not know this guy, and you are into ..., with TSMC and Intel, then this interview will be interesting for you; ... ])
([ for TSMC and Intel reader, inside baseball ])
https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2022/07/102792671-05-01-acc.pdf

https://ethw.org/Oral-History:Robert_N._Noyce

https://ethw.org/Oral-History_Gordon_Earl_Moore_-_.htm
____________________________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway

Lynn Ann Conway (born January 2, 1938)[3][4] is an American computer scientist, electrical engineer and transgender activist.[5]

She worked at IBM in the 1960s and invented generalized dynamic instruction handling, a key advance used in out-of-order execution, used by most modern computer processors to improve performance. She initiated the Mead–Conway VLSI chip design revolution in very large scale integrated (VLSI) microchip design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead–Conway_VLSI_chip_design_revolution

In 1978–79, when approximately 20,000 transistors could be fabricated in a single chip, Carver Mead and Lynn Conway wrote the textbook Introduction to VLSI Systems.[1] It was published in 1979 and became a bestseller, since it was the first VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) design textbook usable by non-physicists. ("In a self-aligned CMOS process, a transistor is formed wherever the gate layer ... crosses a diffusion layer." from: Integrated circuit § Manufacturing)[1]: p.1 The authors intended the book to fill a gap in the literature and introduce electrical engineering and computer science students to integrated system architecture. This textbook triggered a breakthrough in education, as well as in industry practice. Computer science and electrical engineering professors throughout the world started teaching VLSI system design using this textbook. Many of them also obtained a copy of Lynn Conway's notes from her famous MIT course in 1978, which included a collection of exercises.[4]

Reminiscences of the VLSI Revolution:
How a series of failures triggered a paradigm shift in digital design*
By Lynn Conway
Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Emerita
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

([ very readable ])
https://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/Memoirs/VLSI/Lynn_Conway_VLSI_Reminiscences.pdf

____________________________________

Chih-Tang Sah

Evolution of the MOS transistor –– from conception of VLSI
by Chih-tang Sah, fellow, IEEE

manuscript received August 1, 1986;
revised July 14, 1988
October 1988

(silicon MOS aging and failure machanism as well as reliablity physics, chemistry, and modeling, ...)

([ IEEE MOS transistor (subject), English (language) ])
([ pdf image file format, not TEXT, non search able, 47 pages ])

http://www.dejazzer.com/ece723/resources/Evolution_of_the_MOS_transistor.pdf

   Historical developments of the metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect-transitor (MOSFET) during the last 60 years are reviewed, from 1928 patent disclosures of the field-effect conductivity modulation concept and the semiconductor triodes structures proposed by Lilienfeld to the 1947 Shockley-originated efforts which led to the laboratory demonstration of the modern silicon MOSFET 30 years olater in 1960.
   A survey is then made of the milestones of the past 30 years leading to the latest submicron silicon logic CMOS (complementary MOS) and BICMOS (bipolar-junction-transitor CMOS combined) arrays and the 3-dimensional and ferroelectric extensions of Dennard's one-transistor dynamic random access memory (DRAM) cell. Status of the submicron lithographic technologies (deep ultra-violet light, x-ray, electron-beam) are summarized.
   Future trends of memory cell density and logic gate speed are projected.
   Comparisons of the switching speed of the silicon MOSFET with that of silicon biploar and GaAs field-effect transistors are reviewed.
   Use of high-temperature superconducting wires and GaAs-on-Si monolithic semiconductor optical clocks to break the interconnect-wiring delay barrier is discussed.
   Further needs in basic research and mathematical modeling on the failure mechanisms in submicron silicon transistors at high electric fields (hot electron effects) and in interconnection conductors at high current densities and low as well as high electric fields (electromigration) are indicated.

–

source:
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_M._Atalla
According to Fairchild Semiconductor engineer Chih-Tang Sah, the surface passivation process developed by Atalla and his team "blazed the trail" that led to the development of the silicon integrated circuit.[25][23] Atalla's silicon transistor passivation technique by thermal oxide[26] was the basis for several important inventions in 1959: the MOSFET (MOS transistor) by Atalla and Dawon Kahng at Bell Labs, the planar process by Jean Hoerni at Fairchild Semiconductor.[22][25][27]

[23] Sah, Chih-Tang (October 1988). "Evolution of the MOS transistor-from conception to VLSI" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE. 76 (10): 1280–1326 (1290). Bibcode:1988IEEEP..76.1280S. doi:10.1109/5.16328. ISSN 0018-9219. "Those of us active in silicon material and device research during 1956–1960 considered this successful effort by the Bell Labs group led by Atalla to stabilize the silicon surface the most important and significant technology advance, which blazed the trail that led to silicon integrated circuit technology developments in the second phase and volume production in the third phase."
       http://www.dejazzer.com/ece723/resources/Evolution_of_the_MOS_transistor.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Hoerni
   ____________________________________

____________________________________

··<────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────>

··<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->

predict foretell forecast reading room

Friday, May 12, 2023

soldier and scout Julia Galef

No comments:

Post a Comment

Chin-tang sah

Blog Archive