Uh, it is our custom that you introduce yourself and tell u…

Uh, it is our custom that you introduce yourself and tell us who you are as if nobody knows who the hell you are. Go. >> Hi, I'm Greg Bailey. [clears throat] I work for Green Arrays, which was founded in 2009 on Friday the 13th of February by Chuck Moore and all of us who had been working with him for a fellow named Daniel E. Leone at a company called Intellysus. And when we were all laid off from there, we basically spun out with in fact no help at all from Intellysus in the process. I was going to make a couple of brief remarks uh before we run these videos. Uh first remarks are thanks for the opportunity to be here. Appreciate it. We've been here for a while obviously, but u this is a friendly environment. These are friendly folks here. Uh, I'd like to make a couple comments resonating first with what John Ryel reported about slurp. Uh, I also named my first fourth implementation flux f lux, which was an acronym for fourthlike language for unpretentious zero files. For the same [laughter] for the same reason that that John named his slurp, we were afraid. We were we didn't yet know that Elizabeth and Ned were human beings and so we were afraid of them. We're afraid of forth think. At any rate, that was misplaced fear. Chris Lzinski pointed out last year that some people had missed the fact that our computers do not have clocks as such. Chuck has the balls to design a computer with no clock. This is a thing that people generally are not ballsy enough to do. They were in the old days. In the 50s, there were clockless computers, but more recently, people put put clocks in their computers. And why are the clocks there? The function of a clock is to slow down the logic. If you actually look at the designs, you'll discover that is what they are for, is to slow down the logic. By having no clock, it's possible to let the logic run at full speed, which is a very advantageous thing to be able to do. Also, years ago, just to prove a point, I laid out a clock distribution network for a machine the size of one of our F-18s. Those are the computers, of which our chips have 144 of them, and measured its energy consumption using our simulator, which is fairly accurate in this regard. And much to my delight and amusement, it burned as much continuous power as does one of our computers running at 100% duty cycle flat out. So, for example, to have one of those clock distribution networks in our computer slowing it down, we would have on the order of twice the power being consumed. Not quite on the same order because of course the computer would have been slowed down by the clock circuit. And so many of those gates would not be flipping quite as fast as they could. Many of those capacitive loads would not be changing state. But at any rate, Chuck had the balls to do this. And we have in fact made them very, very reliable. They act just like computers. They will sit there and execute many billions of instructions correctly. And I haven't had one fall over without having a power glitch hit it. So there we go. Um, and we don't have clocks. Incidentally, even if you have a clock and shut it down occasionally to go into sleep mode, as it's often called, clocks don't stop instantaneously and they don't start instantaneously. And so there is a triangle of power consumption that you integrate under to determine how much power is squandered starting a clock and stopping a clock. And every start stop instance costs that on a conventional computer with a clock that has a sleep mode. Whereas our sleep mode is we get to a gate that says whether to execute the next instruction and the gate says no and we stop within 100 picos seconds. The power consumption is immeasurable and so that's quite [snorts] a different phenomenon. At any rate uh Chris had said that a lot of people didn't make that connection. and they didn't understand we didn't have a clock and that had something to do with our energy efficiency. It has a lot to do with our energy efficiency. Chris also at the same time suggested that crypto crypto mining was an obl an obvious application for us but actually it isn't because our hardware is not competitive in such mining. Um cryptocurrency mining is 100% duty cycle activity. It's best done by the best and most expensive technology you can get your hands on to at that moment. And you'd better use the hell out of it because the rate at which the difficulty of crypto mining at least for Bitcoin increases is such that at least at the time we were first looking at this [snorts] monthly the difficulty and therefore the amount of machine time you had to spend solving for a given hash was doubling. And so after 10 months, you now had lost a factor of a,024 out of the cash efficiency of your cryptomining hardware until you came up with millions of dollars to lay out the next chip and the next greatest current uh technology. So no, it's not the game for us. Um, usually when we excel at programming, we do it by simplifying the problem.…