Cannons that were massive and while they could deal a great deal of damage in a single firing, everyone would see it coming. Cannon required a lot of support or else their crew would get wiped out by enemy foot soldiers. You couldn’t just pop out, surprise, fire a cannon before anyone notices.

The writers of the amendment wouldn’t have conceived of small arms that would allow a single person to rapidly take down dozens of people at significant distance without any warning or support. Melee weapons were the only viable weapons for a prolonged single person fight, with small arms requiring a long reload activity between shots where the wielder was vulnerable and big weapons being huge, slow, and similarly vulnerable before even the first shot. All of the firearms of the time had the projectile go vaguely in the direction of firing, so at range it was essentially useless for a person by themself without a bunch of others firing balls chaotically in the same direction in hopes of hitting their target.

Not just before bullets and rifling, but firearms were single shot muzzle loaded.

I’m not particularly interested to watch a 40 minute video, so I skinned the transcript a bit.

As my other comments show, I know there are reasons why 3.5 inch doesn’t make sense in SSD context, but I didn’t see anything in a skim of the transcript that seems relevant to that question. They are mostly talking about storage density rather than why not package bigger (and that industry is packaging bigger, but not anything resembling 3.5", because it doesn’t make sense).

The disk cost is about a 3 fold difference, rather than order of magnitude now.

These disks didn’t make up as much of the costs of these solutions as you’d think, so a disk based solution with similar capacity might be more like 40% cheaper rather than 90% cheaper.

The market for pure capacity play storage is well served by spinning platters, for now. But there’s little reason to iterate on your storage subsystem design, the same design you had in 2018 can keep up with modern platters. Compared to SSD where form factor has evolved and the interface indicates revision for every pcie generation.

Hate to break it to you, but the 3.5" form factor would absolutely not be cheaper than an equivalent bunch of E1.S or M.2 drives. The price is not inflated due to the form factor, it’s driven primarily by the cost of the NAND chips, and you’d just need more of them to take advantage of bigger area. To take advantage of the thickness of the form factor, it would need to be a multi-board solution. Also, there’d be a thermal problem, since thermal characteristics of a 3.5" application are not designed with the thermal load of that much SSD.

Add to that that 3.5" are currently maybe 24gb SAS connectors at best, which means that such a hypothetical product would be severely crippled by the interconnect. Throughput wise, talking about over 30 fold slower in theory than an equivalent volume of E1.S drives. Which is bad enough, but SAS has a single relatively shallow queue while an NVME target has thousands of deep queues befitting NAND randam access behavior. So a product has to redesign to vaguely handle that sort of product, and if you do that, you might as well do EDSFF. No one would buy something more expensive than the equivalent capacity in E1.S drives that performs only as well as the SAS connector allows,

The EDSFF defined 4 general form factors, the E1.S which is roughly M.2 sized, and then E1.L, which is over a foot long and would be the absolute most data per cubic volume. And E3.S and E3.L, which wants to be more 2.5"-like. As far as I’ve seen, the market only really wants E1.S despite the bigger form factors, so I tihnk the market has shown that 3.5" wouldn’t have takers.

Not enough of a market

The industry answer is if you want that much volume of storage, get like 6 edsff or m.2 drives.

3.5 inch is a useful format for platters, but not particularly needed to hold nand chips. Meanwhile instead of having to gate all those chips behind a singular connector, you can have 6 connectors to drive performance. Again, less important for a platter based strategy which is unlikely to saturate even a single 12 gb link in most realistic access patterns, but ssds can keep up with 128gb with utterly random io.

Tiny drives means more flexibility. That storage product can go into nas, servers, desktops, the thinnest laptops and embedded applications, maybe wirh tweaked packaging and cooling solutions. A product designed for hosting that many ssd boards behind a single connector is not going to be trivial to modify for any other use case, bottleneck performance by having a single interface, and pretty guaranteed to cost more to manufacturer than selling the components as 6 drives.

I’ve got mixed feelings on the CHIPS act.

It was basically born out of a panic over a short term shortage. Like many industry observers accurately stated that the shortages will subside long before any of the CHIPS spending could even possibly make a difference. Then the tech companies will point to this as a reason not to spend the money they were given.

That largely came to pass, with the potential exception of GPUs in the wake of the LLM craze.

Of course, if you wanted to give the economy any hope for viable electronics while also massively screwing over imports, this would have been your shot. So it seems strategically at odds with the whole “make domestic manufucating happen” rhetoric.

Another interesting thing to consider.

To be clear, he is rich. But he’s not crazy crazy rich, like nowhere near billionaire status.

With that in mind, his kernel is a key component of RedHat’s, SuSE’s and Canonical whole business, with at least two of those being multi billion dollar businesses.

His kernel is a key component of Android phones, which represent over 50 billion a year in hardware spend, and a bunch of software money on top of that.

His kernel is foundational to most hosting/cloud services with just mind blowing billions of revenue quarterly.

It’s used in almost every embedded device on the planet, networking gear, set top boxes, thermostats, televisions, just nearly everything.

People with a fraction of that sort of relevance are billionaires several times over. A number of billionaires owe much of their success to him. Yet he is not among their numbers.

Now there’s more to things than just a kernel to be sure, but across the hundreds of billions of dollars made while running Linux, there was probably plenty of room for him to carve out a few billion for himself were he that sort of person, but he cares about the work more than gaming the dollars. I have a great deal of respect for that.

Means that while he may not always be right, but I at least believe his assessments are sincere and not trying to drive some grift or cover some insecurity about being left behind.