According to Scotten Jones
One really interesting point in this talk that was repeated at the Coventor event at IEDM was the importance of reducing variation. Device engineers focus on improving the mean but designers are more concerned with the distribution tails. Reducing variation is better even if the mean is lower! It was also noted that many of the proposed future devices will likely have more variability and therefore their actual performance may be less impressive than originally expected.
According to CharlieD
Is this an active rumor or is ANSYS really acquiring Mentor Graphics?
Apache used to be a preferred vendor for us but after the ANSYS acquisition they seemed to have lost their zest for life. Honestly I have not heard much from them in the FinFET world. ANSYS has a 2x market cap over MENT? Do they have the cash to make an outright buy or would it be a stock deal?
According to Daniel Nenni
Let’s call it wishful thinking……. I do think it would be good for EDA as I mentioned previously:
The dark horse here of course is ANSYS if they acquire Mentor for example. That would certainly shake things up a bit. Not only would that take Mentor into a whole new level of exposure outside traditional EDA, it would get ANSYS securely inside the semiconductor ecosystem and give Synopsys and Cadence cause for concern, absolutely.
According to David Walker on February 25, 2001 reviewing DeMarco and Lister’s Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams
Peopleware says this: give smart people physical space, intellectual responsibility and strategic direction. DeMarco and Lister advocate private offices and windows. They advocate creating teams with aligned goals and limited non-team work. They advocate managers finding good staff and putting their fate in the hands of those staff. The manager’s function, they write, is not to make people work but to make it possible for people to work.
Why is Peopleware so important to Microsoft and a handful of other successful companies? Why does it inspire such intense devotion amongst the elite group of people who think about software project management for a living? […] Peopleware’s persuasiveness comes from its numbers – from its simple, cold, numerical demonstration that improving programmers’ environments will make them more productive.
The numbers in Peopleware come from DeMarco and Lister’s Coding War Games, a series of competitions to complete given coding and testing tasks in minimal time and with minimal defects. The Games have consistently confirmed various known facts of the software game. For instance, the best coders outperform the ten-to-one, but their pay seems only weakly linked to their performance. But DeMarco and Lister also found that the best-performing coders had larger, quieter, more private workspaces. It is for this one empirical finding that Peopleware is best known.
(As an aside, it’s worth knowing that DeMarco and Lister tried to track down the research showing that open-plan offices make people more productive. It didn’t exist. Cubicle makers just kept saying it, without evidence – a technique Peopleware describes as “proof by repeated assertion”.)
Around their Coding Wars data, DeMarco and Lister assembled a theory: that managers should help programmers, designers, writers and other brainworkers to reach a state that psychologists call “flow” – an almost meditative condition where people can achieve important leaps towards solving complex problems. It’s the state where you start work, look up, and notice that three hours have passed. But it takes time – perhaps fifteen minutes on average – to get into this state. And DeMarco and Lister that today’s typical noisy, cubicled, Dilbertesque office rarely allows people 15 minutes of uninterrupted work. In other words, the world is full of places where a highly-paid and dedicated programmer or creative artist can spend a full day without ever getting any hard-core work [done]. Put another way, the world is full of cheap opportunities for people to make their co-workers more productive, just by building their offices a bit smarter.
According to Joe Romm in “In Historic Paris Climate Deal, World Unanimously Agrees To Not Burn Most Fossil Fuels”
The economic and environmental implications of this deal for Americans are staggering. In the near term, it will unlock an accelerating multi-trillion-dollar shift in capital investment away from carbon-intensive coal and oil, which were the cornerstone of the first industrial revolution, into clean technologies like solar, wind, LED lighting, advanced batteries, and electric cars. It means far less harmful carbon pollution will be emitted in the coming years.
The agreement “sends a very powerful message to the business and investment community that the age of fossil fuels is ending,” explained the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Alden Meyer. Thus, “continued investments in high-carbon assets conflicts with their fiduciary responsibility.”