• floo@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 hours ago

    No, it isn’t. There’s just a passing interest in retro technology

    It’ll pass

    • sploosh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      New, programmable analog chips that perform basic sound processing aren’t retro. The article is worth reading.

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 hours ago

      This has nothing to do with retro technology. This is about thinking “is using binary really the most efficient way to run every computation we need to do?”, which is really relevant today.

      • floo@retrolemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        Is it? Binary is not a “analog” vs “digital” thing. “Binary” existed in analog computing for a couple of centuries at least before the concept of “digital“ even existed.

        It’s an abstract concept, not a specific application and while it can be specifically applied, there is no implication that it is either analog or digital. It could be either, both, or neither.

        • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          With “binary” I mean “has two states”, as in discrete, as in digital. You can represent binary bits using analog circuits, but it doesn’t make those circuits binary/digital. Likewise, you can represent continuous, analog functions using discrete logic, but it will always be an approximation. What makes these chips different is that they are able to not only represent but actually model continuous functions and values, like physical models.

          • floo@retrolemmy.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            I think perhaps you might’ve misunderstood my comment, because this is exactly what I was saying (well, part of what I was saying, anyway). You’re just being a lot more specific in your explanation.

            I’ll try to be more clear in the future

            • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              No offense taken! I just believe that a subtle difference does not mean unimportant and wanted to be precise. I didn’t take you as someone who doesn’t understand analog and digital, especially considering your instance :) I edited my previous comment for some additional clarity. I just think they’re neat ^^

        • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 hours ago

          That doesn’t contradict anything above.

          There’s a company pushing their hybrid analog/digital chip for real use cases. I dunno if it’s going to be successful, but it’s not retro.